Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 29

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loganberry (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 29 September 2005 (+Nathan Joseph Samuels properly (made a hash of this the first time; sorry)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 28 >

Purge server cache

September 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DES (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caschera

Likely hoax. The village of Broccostella is real, and Google comes up with geneaology websites listing Caschera as a surname attested in the village, but there is no evidence of lions or Julius Caesar. Pilatus 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a report on the Providence of Frozinone. There are several references to the Cascheras, but they are all in Italian. Please see "Broccostella: I Fondatori". Please also note that they are only legandary. Italians are famous for having such creation/founding myths, ie Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf. 141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Don Tote141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment the sounds rather incongruous. Julius Caesar and his mythical ancestor Aeneas lived 1000 years apart. Someone's ancestry can be traced back to one or the other but not to either. And the idea that anyone (even a legendary figure) could be nursed by a lion in the densely populated Latium of 100 AD isn't believable. As I said, verifiable sources are needed. Pilatus 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)In fact, Caesar did claim that Aeneas was his ancestor, please see Plutarch's "Life of Caesar" and Suetonius's "Life of Caesar". Also, Latium was and is not "densely" populated even to this day. Most of it is rural mountainside with peasant villages scattered along the Appene mountain range. During this time period, the region was popluated with Lions until the Romans killed most of them off. Furthermore, the fact that they are legendary figures seems to escape some people. They were most likely not real, that is, these are figments of ones imagination not to be taken seriously. To say that it "isn't believable" would mean that one was ignoring the fact that they are legandary. I have managed to find a reference of The Caschera's in "Mythical and legendary narrative in Ovid's Fasti" by Paul Murgatroyd. A further study would have to be required in order to justly remove this entry. Also, the Fibreno River can be located to be an actual river found near the village. Thank you, Don Tote141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legends must be self-consistent, too, people like them to make sense. I know that Caesar traced his own ancestry back to Aeneas. Someone would trace back his own ancestry only to Caesar or to Aeneas, who lived 1000 years previously, but not to both. As far as the lions go, from what I know Latium was the heartland of the Roman empire and at that time extensively used for agriculture. There is no place for lions on cultivated land. Pilatus 18:30, 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 keep CDC (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Breaks

non-notable music. Not written in encyclopedic form or tone, and nearly impossible to fix because there isn't enough context. (e.g. is acid breaks the name of one track or all the tracks?) Written as personal recollection (could be original research also other entries under WP:NOT). RJFJR 00:09, 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.

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 keep --Doc (?) 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs

This is the second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-referential songs for the previous ballot. Anyway, this list is now rendered unmaintainable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.176.99 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 September 2005

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer in Western Australia

Here's one page that im confused about. I was thinking about a merge but I dont know where or if because it is only one line and i dont normally deal with soccer so im placing it on VFD for a check. Looks like maybe a Speedy in this state for lack of content . --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 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 Keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


St. John's Military School

Obvious self promotion by the school. Hoovernj 00:23, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Bell Assassins (T.B.A)

Dont delete this page its my contribution to wikipedia and i shouldnt BE silenced by the man (preceding unsigned comment by Immortal technique (talk · contribs) --Sherool 00:39, 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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glencoe Hedge Fund

Advertising of a non-notable hedge fund. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prookum, the Echidna

None notable webcomic made by Morrowism, who's articles on Shame McSheista and Geronimus Nil I've tagged for speedy deletion due to nonsense/hoax/non notable. I also had to revert a single line vandalism on Andy Warhol. I don't think however this comes under CSD, a defunct webcomic hosted on angelfire with 1 google hit. If this can be speedied then that would be great. - Hahnchen 00:49, 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. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sccrewed

Non-notable, no mention on Google NeilN 00:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify 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 08:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted designs

Non-notable politically-motivated art group. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 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 4/15 +/- (due to how interpretation of certain uncertain votes) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Evolution poll

Article has escaped under the radar screen. It is basically a creationist POV-pushing endeavor. Any worthwhile content can be merged to the creationism article or the creation-evolution controversy article. This article, however, is misleadingly named (it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy) and the article has very little worth salvaging in terms of content since this basically is original research or, where it isn't, can be appropriately addressed on other pages. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....delete, delete, delete, or at least teach a few rednecks to read a damn genome

  • Keep This is one of the oldest articles at Wikipedia (3 years, 10 months). It was originally created to settle a dispute over how many people "believe in evolution" - which turns out to depend of various definitions of biological evolution.
    When "evolution" is defined in naturalistic terms about 1 American in 8 supports it. When the definition of "evolution" is expanded to include gradual emergence of species guided by an intelligent force (like God) then additonal 3/8 of Americans may be said to "support evolution".
    Sources have been in this article (I know: I put them in there at least twice over the years). If sources were deleted for some reason, then simply put them back.
    There is no reason to delete this article, other than to suppress information about the controversy, dispute and/or debate between advocates about their positions on evolution.
    It's especially disturbing that when I linked to this article, another contributer immediately said that he would try to get it deleted. This smacks of censorship - which is sneaky and low down way to win a debate! Uncle Ed 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you created this article, according to the edit history, and by article, I mean one paragraph copy/paste, you then proved it 'valid' by linking to a washington times article, which apparently is where you copy/pasted it from.. using a tabloid as an encylopedic source is a rediculous standard, not to mention straight out copy/pasting?..--64.12.117.11 11:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uninformative, not encyclopaedic Ex0pos 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no evolutionist but get rid of this lest Wikipedia becomes a repository on poll results for every concievable controversy Paul 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a thorough-going evolutionist, but if this is the only Wp article treating the well-known phenomenon of the apparent popularity of creationism in the US, then it should definitely stay and be improved upon. Unless I'm missing something — like that this article repeats information elsewhere in Wp, then I agree with Ed — this smacks of censorship. --goethean ॐ 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evolution is a dirty conspiracy, it's ten times worse then that whole 'round earth' bit, 5 times as insideous as that 'global warming' crap, and just as absurd as that whole 'gravity' thing, can you believe the leftist commie pinkos are actually allowed to teach this stuff to our children?? next thing you know they'll be handing out abortions like they're soada pop--172.208.123.70 14:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Moon

Totally non notable webcomic which can be found here, alongside it's desolation city forums here. A google search for yellow moon brings up quite a few entities and websites named Yellow Moon, this non notable webcomic, does not feature. If we take a look at the Alexa rankings at keenspace, we see that this comic is not mentioned in the report suggesting that it is one of the very little read webcomics on the site. With stupendously lax inclusion criteria at WP:COMIC, random fans are adding webcomic articles to Wikipedia unchallenged, we have to stop this from happening, longevity does not mean notability. - Hahnchen 01:07, 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 as follows:

  • の had 19 keep, 5 delete, and 4 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.
  • い had 8 keep and 3 delete. The result was KEEP.
  • あ had 6 keep and 4 delete. The result was no consensus.
  • Votes for all three overall were 12 keep, 0 delete, and 1 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.

The final result was KEEP. Robert 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kana alphabet articles

This is a merger of three VfDs: あ, い, and の. The outcome on these articles should all be the same, so let's get a consistent consensus rather than having some of them deleted and others not, ok? Kelly Martin 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make it clear how votes count here? Do I have to put delete after each kana, or will you only count votes one for each person for the whole article? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not sure of the rules. --DannyWilde 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not likely to close this AfD myself (I rarely close AfDs) but I would recommend that whoever does close this use common sense in counting votes. It is important, in my opinion, that all three articles close with the same result, and I imagine that the closing admin will examine all offered opinions without too much regard to which articles they are offered in connection with to reach a decision about consensus. Frankly, at this point, I can't see how a consensus will arise out of this swamp, but stranger things have happened.... Kelly Martin 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/あ. I have only created three kana articles and stopped when "no" was VFD'd. Toothpaste 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the other kana are being added, so the outcome of this vote should also apply to those also. This was the first letter to be added, so the main discussion for all of them should probably be here. --Interiot 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

の

Dictionary definition. DannyWilde 00:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dictionary entry exists in Wiktionary anyway. --DannyWilde
  • Weak Delete, as DannyWilde said, they're already in wiktionary. The roman alphabet (A, B, C, ...) has individual pages, but the wiktionary pages seem to already have more information than is being created in the en/wikipedia pages. If there's enough information to go in these, that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, then Keep. Are all 50/100 kana going to be added? Are any kanji going to be added?? --Interiot 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, kanji will not be added, only the kana, and the katakana will redirect to the hiragana articles. Like with the articles on the English alphabet letters, these articles could show the history of the writing of individual kana. In fact, I have a 2000 page dictionary in storage that shows the history of each English letter, with each article on them at least two pages. Aside from the history, the article could go slightly deeper into phonology, too, and possibly instructions on how to write the kana. Toothpaste 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason why these aren't any less encyclopedic than the letters of the Roman alphabet. Kelly Martin 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), if there is an encyclopaedia article to be had, it should be under an English title. But, as per the far better dictionary article の in Wiktionary, there is clearly no subject for an encyclopaedia article to be had. This article is a mis-placed dictionary article, pure and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a stub encyclopaedia article it would have no hope of expansion. Delete. Uncle G 01:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are unsatisfied with the name of the article, it can be moved to No (kana) and the actual hiragana and katakana can be made into redirects.
      • I reiterate: There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Everything that you have proposed adding, pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth is dictionary article content about the word. Wiktionary has had vast numbers of such articles with pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth, since 2003. If you want to improve them with pictures, Wiktionary is the place to do so. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have articles on A and B and so on. I don't know, but I should expect you would be able to say as much about the kana as about Roman letters. ~~ N (t/c) 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • One can, and the dictionary does. Go look at some of the thousands of such entries in Wiktionary. Some of them are huge. They have Unicode values, stroke indicies, input method indices, meanings in several languages, transliterations in several systems, translations, and more. Pictures would improve them yet further. A random medium-length example (selected, ironically, by hitting "random page" exactly once at Wiktionary) of what a dictionary can contain: 冝. Uncle G 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Agree that this would be better in Wiktionary. Disagree that the article in Wikitionary is "better." This one has some nice information not duplicated there. Crypticfirefly 02:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Toothpaste - there is a rich history at A and B ... and it would be nice to have the same sort of history for the kana. Johntex\talk 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles about letters are well-founded (we used to have them even back in UseModWiki days, indeed). James F. (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What of the overlap between wikipedia and wiktionary? Is there a substantial reason to have them in both places? If not, which one should be kept? --Interiot 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiktionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both can be kept, just as how the elements of the periodic table belong in both dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition, the Roman alphabet also exists in a dictionary. Toothpaste 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A false analogy. Whereas a dictionary article on plutonium tells one about the word, how it is pronounced and so forth, an encyclopaedia about plutonium tells one about plutonium — about the element that the word represents. This is not the case here. You are not creating encyclopaedia articles about the things that the words represents. (It's clear from the Wiktionary entry telling us the meaning of the word that there isn't an encyclopaedia article to be had about the thing that this word represents.) You are creating dictionary articles about the words themselves. Uncle G 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toothpaste. Acetic'Acid 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to e.g. No (kana) because we have articles on the Roman alphabet, and surely the Japanese alphabet is just as interesting. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very strong keep. I didn't even know that there were actual entries about the kana characters on English Wikipedia. It would be a total and complete shame to delete these entries. Cjmarsicano 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename. I don't have any particular strong opinion on whether we should only have a wiktionary entry, or an encyclopedic entry (although I lean slightly toward the latter; alphabets are encyclopaedic). However, I have a very strong opinion about the title: it should be in English (or, at least, the English alphabet). Noel (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to move it to No (kana) if kept, along with all other kana articles, as that seems to be the consensus here. Toothpaste 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these contributions into Wiktionary, but make sure that it's easy to get to from the hiragana, katakana, and other relevant articles. I would love to see full histories, stroke orders, and such for each of the kana (and kanji!), but I don't see any compelling reason that they should be here instead of at Wiktionary. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a good reason might be that that's /way/ outside the scope of Wiktionary. The article you describe doesn't belong in a dictionary. It belongs in an encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Complete rubbish. It's not outside of the scope of Wiktionary at all. Go look in Wiktionary at some of the existing articles. See the one that I picked at random above, for example. Many of them have stroke indexes, Unicode encodings, and other technical information. (And even they aren't complete. One could add audio pronunciation files, for one example.) That's what Wiktionary would like for all such articles. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、--Jondel 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understanding, kanji are used as the bases of words. Hiragana and katakana are uses as noun endings, adjective endings, for other suffixes, to show the pronunciation of kanji, for stylistic purposes, for otomotopoeias, for emphasis, for technical terms, and for the transcription of words borrowed from other languages. I do not think we should have an article for every character representing a word, or part of a compound word, or a rootword, but for characters that represent individual sounds that can form a word, as in the English alphabet and with the kana. If this and similar articles were to be kept, only approximately 50 or so kana articles would be created total. Toothpaste 03:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I guess as its gonna be moved to 'No' or whatever. I don't think every character will be necessary as this is just one of the most common and all... zOMG not bold Extremely strong machoman randy savage delete. C'mon, a solid majority of us (I'd estimate between 80 and 95%) just see a ?. Its a dicdef even for those who have the language pack. Useless for an English Encyclopedia. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see reasoning at い). Pilatus 03:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note from the person who suggested deleting this in the first place: there is some information about some of the kana characters which could be worth having in Wikipedia. For example the origin of the kana ン is disputed. It might belong in Wikipedia if we were to discuss the origin of the character, or if there is to be something other than just "this is a Japanese character, it is pronounced "no" ". However, I'd expect such information to come from a split from katakana or hiragana pages if it came from anywhere. Also, "no" has very important grammatical functions in Japanese grammar. So I think there is a possibility of expansion or split from Japanese grammar of a "no" page. However, since there are already lists of Japanese symbols on the hiragana and katakana pages, I'm very dubious about making a full set of small, unexpandable stub articles about every single Japanese symbol. --DannyWilde 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please and all other hirigana katakana and kanji characters pilatus is right we are an english wikipedia but we should also too stop the systemic biases here enough is enough Yuckfoo 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the discussion? The point is that the characters all already exist on Wiktionary. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? In any case, this is more than just a stub. -- Curps 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles, hiragana and katakana, and complete entries on Wiktionary. If there is any additional extensive material to be added to the article, let it first be added to hiragana or katakana, then if those pages become too long, then consider breaking them. --DannyWilde 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since I started the vote for deletion, this article has been artificially bulked with copy-paste edits from other pages, probably in order to avoid being deleted. For example, the comments about "no" coming from the sousho form of characters, etc., apply to ALL of the Japanese kana, not just this one - there is no point in having fifty identical pages, one for each kana, with the same copy-pasted statement. Using this kind of trickery in order to avoid the page being deleted should not be acceptable. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. If you'd prefer the history section to be taken out temporarily, this would be fine. The transition of man'yōgana to hiragana is much more complex than what is written now. For example, it's a pretty big jump from the second character to the third in the picture at Image:Nohistory.jpg. I'd rather have a few copy and pasted statements, aided by pictures, than an article lacking completely in history content, which applies to this VFD, but overall, and I already it's already a beginning to be a bit comprehensive. Toothpaste 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious about writing in detail about the origins of kana on a per-kana basis, I would suggest an article on "Origin of kana" with section headings for each kana you want to discuss, if you have enough material that it will make hiragana or katakana too big, of course. If there is so much stuff on one kana that you actually need a whole article on it, I'd be surprised. Spreading origins all over the place in fifty different articles doesn't make any sense, since the hiragana and katakana are all very closely related to each other and the history is the same. --DannyWilde 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bed now, as I've been working on these for the past four hours, so you'll know why my reply will be delayed. Toothpaste 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's too much to ask that an article be born an adult. The purpose of stub tags is to indicate potential growth. These articles have the same potential as the articles on the letters of the Latin alphabet. The number of symbols, and that the language is foreign, might result in slower growth, so let's give them time. Fg2 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, just because this Wikipedia is written in the English language, is no reason for articles about Japanese kana to exist, and I feel it is just as justified here as on the Japanese Wikipedia. How are the Roman letter articles different from these? Also, I think saying, "You didn't read anything that was said," is a patronizing tactic way too common in Wikipedian discussion, which also applies to the other side, given a few people that, at first continued to site the article's location at の as a reason to delete even after I had moved it. Toothpaste 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


い

This is a mis-placed dictionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, already has い (and many others). As an encyclopaedia article, this article would have no hope of expansion, and would be under an English title anyway, per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). Uncle G 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the new No (kana) version -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、 ,yamemashou やめましょう,sayounaraさようなら:佐様奈良--Jondel 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do not believe that "heavy storage issues" are close to being a problem or are likely to be a problem in the future. It seems to me that this is not a good reason for wishing to delete or prohibit certain types of articles. Lupin|talk|popups 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の. Toothpaste 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge... somewhere. I don't see the reasoning behind deleting letters of languages with lots of letters if we have quite respectable articles on languages with fewer letters. It does need more information if it is to stand as an article in its own right, though. Lupin|talk|popups 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That we have articles on the languages is no reason to have articles on the individual words in those languages. That is what a dictionary is for. As I have already pointed out both at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の and above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's Wiktionary's job. If you think that い needs pictures, or pronunciation guides, or Unicode information, or attached audio files (which will being it up to the level of the other dictionary articles that have these things), then please add them. But turning the encyclopaedia into a dictionary, counter to the official policy, is needless duplication. The dictionary is right there, and will take all of the dictionary content that editors have to offer. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are entries for the characters of the Latin alphabet and on some unicode characerts, so there is good reason to believe that a decent article can be written on each individual kana character. Note that I don't hold similar optimism for primary sch**ls. Pilatus 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For good articles on these characters, see the dictionary, which has had lots of such articles since 2003. The dictionary is the place for writing articles about words, and many such articles have already been written. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a word but a glyph from a syllabary alphabet, and as such should be kept here. The article in its present form isn't a dictionary entry at all but an entry on the character. Pilatus 13:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please my explanation is already at no (kkana) Yuckfoo 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? There are only a few dozen kana, by the way, so comparing this to adding thousands of Chinese character articles is off the mark. -- Curps 05:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pilatus. Please try to avoid bias against non-English languages. --Last Malthusian 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter Isotalo 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia may suffer from systemic bias, but it's also en.wikipedia. Dict def articles about non-Roman symbols are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

あ

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い. Uncle G 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I like the new No (kana) entry -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued, merged

  • Comment. Dictionaries are for the physical written, spoken, and electronic symbols, how those symbols fit into larger physical expressions such as individual sentences, and the historical changes of the physical symbols. Encyclopedias explain the ideas those symbols refer to, and refer back to physical symbol history only when needed for disambiguation purposes. This goes doubly for individual letters. You wouldn't put an audio pronunciation on the wikipedia の page, any more than you would put 'his-t(&-)rE &v "ar-&-'zO-n& on the History of Arizona page. --Interiot 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't naturally think to look for a letter of a foreign alphabet in an English language dictionary --TimPope 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (moved above so comments aren't doubled) Why not? You find satsuma and seppuku and yakitori in an English dictionary. They're in an English dictionary because the definition is in English, not because the subject itself is english. --Interiot
      • Those are all words, these articles are about characters. I see a distinction. --TimPope 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, as stated above, letters are even more low-level representations than individual prefixes, words, or phrases. You find pronunciation of words and a long list of historical spellings in dictionaries, but not in encyclopedias. That's because dictionaries describe how you write a word down, how you pronounce the word, how you attach it to other words. Encyclopedias describe the concept, history, and larger context that pops into your head when someone says/writes/types that word to you. Individual letters having nothing to do with abstract ideas in your head. There's clear precedent that pronunciation belongs in a dictionary, so it follows that how a letter or word is expressed in Unicode or Braille also belongs in a dictionary, because these are just different mechanisms for communicating between two people, but they don't have any impact on the higher-level thoughts a person has once the idea is communicated to them. Note that kanji (and chinese characters generally) blur the line between letters and words, and chinese characters clearly belong in a dictionary. --Interiot 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the information expressing how to pronounce it more similar to that of a. The only difference now is that Usage does not have its own section. Should I give it one? Toothpaste 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If given its own section, the Grammar section will be merged into Usage. This is similar to how "a" as an article is mentioned under the Usage section of a. I'm just using Latin alphabet articles as models. Toothpaste 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are also articles on pentagram, and ampersand. Some opponents seem to confuse syllabary with ideograms. Kana is syllabry, so its characters are letters. -Hapsiainen 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh. Ideograms clearly are dictionaries (eg. see character dictionaries). As for the difference between pentagrams and syllabary... You can stick a pentagram next to an octagon next to a circle, and it doesn't mean anything syntactically. Whereas, with syllabries and letters, their purpose is to be part of the language hierarchy (eg. letters form words, words form phrases, phrases form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs form encyclopedia entries (or something)). Letters are on the opposite end of the language hierarchy from where encyclopedias sit. --Interiot 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used pentagram and ampersand as examples of signs that have their own articles. I didn't say that pentagram is a letter or an ideogram. -Hapsiainen 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the standard I put forth in the couple of comments above, language-oriented graphemes should be placed only in a dictionary (contrary to current precedent), but non-language-oriented pictograms (such as a pentagram) should be placed only in an encyclopedia. So those were arguments for that position. Both Encarta and Merriam-Webster include entries for individual roman letters, so I suppose a safe way to rule on this would be to put the same/similar content on both wikipedia and wiktionary. But that's a bit of a weird solution, especially if we can find a standard that indicates which articles should go where. --Interiot 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As does Britannica. If this gets deleted, do you agree that a should be VFD'd? Toothpaste 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm proposing that if an organization produces both an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and makes them equally available (especially for free), it should not have duplicate entries for every single grapheme. So, yes, I'm suggesting the two articles should be merged. --Interiot 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictionary definition, and that pretty much says it all. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...so... The wiktionary entries should be VfDed? --Interiot 20:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can try, but I guess Wiktionary wouldn't take too kindly to proposing their article for deletion on Wikipedia :P. If by "VfD" you mean wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, I guess a dictionary entry could be written under that topic as well, so no. I hope you're not implying that wikt:encyclopedia should be deleted just because we have Encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think most people can understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. However, I don't understand how there's a difference between existing content for the grapheme articles (Braille, Unicode, audio pronunciation, part of speech usage, stroke order, etc). It seems to be the same on both sides. --Interiot 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am of the opinion that this is material that is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia, and maybe less appropriate for a dictionary entry. However, whether they think it is appropriate there is something they have to decide by themselves, and I'm saying that I think this is appropriate here in this discussion. There is no rule that content must not be duplicated on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as long as both communities want it. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, the suggestion then is that users should click on the interwiki link, and read through both articles at the same time, to make sure they get the full/best information? Or that one of us personally ferry information back and forth to create two copies of the best information? --Interiot 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as pre the precedent of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. --Carnildo 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some (not necessarily all) characters are notable --madewokherd 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until we delete Z. Seems a reasonable start. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep keep keep. Not only per precedent, but there's some damned interesting stuff in here. Are we supposed to go to Wiktionary to find out how the stroke order evolved? --Golbez 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The history of these ideograph and ideograph components is certainly encyclopedic, as is the practice of writing them and any notes on usage and significance (in the same manner as we have "grade A" or the quote "I am the alpha and omega"). Demi T/C 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A small correction: Japanese kana aren't ideographs. Anyway, I completely agree with your point. I hope something everyone will agree with is that the history of kana does belong in Wikipedia. But, before deciding whether to keep the article on that basis, please take a look at the two excellent existing articles, hiragana, and katakana. If there is a lot of information to include, it is possible that each individual character might need to have a history page, giving more details, but as I suggested above I think it would be better to integrate the information into one focused page if at all possible. --DannyWilde 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename in English, otherwise the articles are more or less useless. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The issue is that, I strongly believe it's a problem if the standards say that information should be completely duplicated in both places. At this point, there's precedent on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary (1), (2) to keep all the information discussed so far on either side. When AfD/RfDs come up, the easy thing to do is vote Keep, and act like a problem doesn't exist. So eventually this information will get copied to both sides, while all along, people aren't required to give reasoned arguments for or against the idea that it should be copied verbatim in both places. I'm a programmer, and one of the first things that was pounded into my head over and over, was that you don't keep information in multiple places unless there's a really really good reason, because it always causes more problems than you think it will, keeping them synchronized or coordinated wastes a lot of human time, and usually there's a simple technical or procedural fix for it. This discussion is made more important because we really are talking about duplicating hundreds and thousands of characters.         Most dictionaries and encyclopedias have characters in them. So people will come to either place looking for information. We're an electronic wiki, we're one community, not two, and we can do better. The solution is to put a redirect or interwiki link on the other side, and only store information on one side. And there is precedent for doing that too. --Interiot 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While there exists the potential to make a significant article for each of these, none of these has enough to justify a separate encyclopedia article at the moment. Caerwine 23:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Japanese alphabet? Keep, we have A, A (Cyrillic), Alpha (letter) and Æ, so why shouldn't we have articles on Kana, given that they are now at English titles? Alphax τεχ 13:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 9 (webcomic)

Non notable webcomic which can be found here, along with previously deleted webcomic Gemini Bright. Its alexa rank is at 5 million, although a spike did send it up to 1 million at one point. A google search shows up nothing which makes this website more notable than any other out there. Just because a website is a webcomic, does not make it inherently notable, let's delete this. - Hahnchen 01:26, 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 as follows:

  • の had 19 keep, 5 delete, and 4 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.
  • い had 8 keep and 3 delete. The result was KEEP.
  • あ had 6 keep and 4 delete. The result was no consensus.
  • Votes for all three overall were 12 keep, 0 delete, and 1 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.

The final result was KEEP. Robert 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kana alphabet articles

This is a merger of three VfDs: あ, い, and の. The outcome on these articles should all be the same, so let's get a consistent consensus rather than having some of them deleted and others not, ok? Kelly Martin 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make it clear how votes count here? Do I have to put delete after each kana, or will you only count votes one for each person for the whole article? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not sure of the rules. --DannyWilde 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not likely to close this AfD myself (I rarely close AfDs) but I would recommend that whoever does close this use common sense in counting votes. It is important, in my opinion, that all three articles close with the same result, and I imagine that the closing admin will examine all offered opinions without too much regard to which articles they are offered in connection with to reach a decision about consensus. Frankly, at this point, I can't see how a consensus will arise out of this swamp, but stranger things have happened.... Kelly Martin 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/あ. I have only created three kana articles and stopped when "no" was VFD'd. Toothpaste 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the other kana are being added, so the outcome of this vote should also apply to those also. This was the first letter to be added, so the main discussion for all of them should probably be here. --Interiot 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

の

Dictionary definition. DannyWilde 00:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dictionary entry exists in Wiktionary anyway. --DannyWilde
  • Weak Delete, as DannyWilde said, they're already in wiktionary. The roman alphabet (A, B, C, ...) has individual pages, but the wiktionary pages seem to already have more information than is being created in the en/wikipedia pages. If there's enough information to go in these, that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, then Keep. Are all 50/100 kana going to be added? Are any kanji going to be added?? --Interiot 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, kanji will not be added, only the kana, and the katakana will redirect to the hiragana articles. Like with the articles on the English alphabet letters, these articles could show the history of the writing of individual kana. In fact, I have a 2000 page dictionary in storage that shows the history of each English letter, with each article on them at least two pages. Aside from the history, the article could go slightly deeper into phonology, too, and possibly instructions on how to write the kana. Toothpaste 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason why these aren't any less encyclopedic than the letters of the Roman alphabet. Kelly Martin 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), if there is an encyclopaedia article to be had, it should be under an English title. But, as per the far better dictionary article の in Wiktionary, there is clearly no subject for an encyclopaedia article to be had. This article is a mis-placed dictionary article, pure and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a stub encyclopaedia article it would have no hope of expansion. Delete. Uncle G 01:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are unsatisfied with the name of the article, it can be moved to No (kana) and the actual hiragana and katakana can be made into redirects.
      • I reiterate: There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Everything that you have proposed adding, pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth is dictionary article content about the word. Wiktionary has had vast numbers of such articles with pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth, since 2003. If you want to improve them with pictures, Wiktionary is the place to do so. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have articles on A and B and so on. I don't know, but I should expect you would be able to say as much about the kana as about Roman letters. ~~ N (t/c) 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • One can, and the dictionary does. Go look at some of the thousands of such entries in Wiktionary. Some of them are huge. They have Unicode values, stroke indicies, input method indices, meanings in several languages, transliterations in several systems, translations, and more. Pictures would improve them yet further. A random medium-length example (selected, ironically, by hitting "random page" exactly once at Wiktionary) of what a dictionary can contain: 冝. Uncle G 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Agree that this would be better in Wiktionary. Disagree that the article in Wikitionary is "better." This one has some nice information not duplicated there. Crypticfirefly 02:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Toothpaste - there is a rich history at A and B ... and it would be nice to have the same sort of history for the kana. Johntex\talk 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles about letters are well-founded (we used to have them even back in UseModWiki days, indeed). James F. (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What of the overlap between wikipedia and wiktionary? Is there a substantial reason to have them in both places? If not, which one should be kept? --Interiot 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiktionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both can be kept, just as how the elements of the periodic table belong in both dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition, the Roman alphabet also exists in a dictionary. Toothpaste 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A false analogy. Whereas a dictionary article on plutonium tells one about the word, how it is pronounced and so forth, an encyclopaedia about plutonium tells one about plutonium — about the element that the word represents. This is not the case here. You are not creating encyclopaedia articles about the things that the words represents. (It's clear from the Wiktionary entry telling us the meaning of the word that there isn't an encyclopaedia article to be had about the thing that this word represents.) You are creating dictionary articles about the words themselves. Uncle G 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toothpaste. Acetic'Acid 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to e.g. No (kana) because we have articles on the Roman alphabet, and surely the Japanese alphabet is just as interesting. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very strong keep. I didn't even know that there were actual entries about the kana characters on English Wikipedia. It would be a total and complete shame to delete these entries. Cjmarsicano 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename. I don't have any particular strong opinion on whether we should only have a wiktionary entry, or an encyclopedic entry (although I lean slightly toward the latter; alphabets are encyclopaedic). However, I have a very strong opinion about the title: it should be in English (or, at least, the English alphabet). Noel (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to move it to No (kana) if kept, along with all other kana articles, as that seems to be the consensus here. Toothpaste 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these contributions into Wiktionary, but make sure that it's easy to get to from the hiragana, katakana, and other relevant articles. I would love to see full histories, stroke orders, and such for each of the kana (and kanji!), but I don't see any compelling reason that they should be here instead of at Wiktionary. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a good reason might be that that's /way/ outside the scope of Wiktionary. The article you describe doesn't belong in a dictionary. It belongs in an encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Complete rubbish. It's not outside of the scope of Wiktionary at all. Go look in Wiktionary at some of the existing articles. See the one that I picked at random above, for example. Many of them have stroke indexes, Unicode encodings, and other technical information. (And even they aren't complete. One could add audio pronunciation files, for one example.) That's what Wiktionary would like for all such articles. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、--Jondel 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my understanding, kanji are used as the bases of words. Hiragana and katakana are uses as noun endings, adjective endings, for other suffixes, to show the pronunciation of kanji, for stylistic purposes, for otomotopoeias, for emphasis, for technical terms, and for the transcription of words borrowed from other languages. I do not think we should have an article for every character representing a word, or part of a compound word, or a rootword, but for characters that represent individual sounds that can form a word, as in the English alphabet and with the kana. If this and similar articles were to be kept, only approximately 50 or so kana articles would be created total. Toothpaste 03:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I guess as its gonna be moved to 'No' or whatever. I don't think every character will be necessary as this is just one of the most common and all... zOMG not bold Extremely strong machoman randy savage delete. C'mon, a solid majority of us (I'd estimate between 80 and 95%) just see a ?. Its a dicdef even for those who have the language pack. Useless for an English Encyclopedia. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see reasoning at い). Pilatus 03:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note from the person who suggested deleting this in the first place: there is some information about some of the kana characters which could be worth having in Wikipedia. For example the origin of the kana ン is disputed. It might belong in Wikipedia if we were to discuss the origin of the character, or if there is to be something other than just "this is a Japanese character, it is pronounced "no" ". However, I'd expect such information to come from a split from katakana or hiragana pages if it came from anywhere. Also, "no" has very important grammatical functions in Japanese grammar. So I think there is a possibility of expansion or split from Japanese grammar of a "no" page. However, since there are already lists of Japanese symbols on the hiragana and katakana pages, I'm very dubious about making a full set of small, unexpandable stub articles about every single Japanese symbol. --DannyWilde 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please and all other hirigana katakana and kanji characters pilatus is right we are an english wikipedia but we should also too stop the systemic biases here enough is enough Yuckfoo 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the discussion? The point is that the characters all already exist on Wiktionary. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? In any case, this is more than just a stub. -- Curps 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles, hiragana and katakana, and complete entries on Wiktionary. If there is any additional extensive material to be added to the article, let it first be added to hiragana or katakana, then if those pages become too long, then consider breaking them. --DannyWilde 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since I started the vote for deletion, this article has been artificially bulked with copy-paste edits from other pages, probably in order to avoid being deleted. For example, the comments about "no" coming from the sousho form of characters, etc., apply to ALL of the Japanese kana, not just this one - there is no point in having fifty identical pages, one for each kana, with the same copy-pasted statement. Using this kind of trickery in order to avoid the page being deleted should not be acceptable. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. If you'd prefer the history section to be taken out temporarily, this would be fine. The transition of man'yōgana to hiragana is much more complex than what is written now. For example, it's a pretty big jump from the second character to the third in the picture at Image:Nohistory.jpg. I'd rather have a few copy and pasted statements, aided by pictures, than an article lacking completely in history content, which applies to this VFD, but overall, and I already it's already a beginning to be a bit comprehensive. Toothpaste 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious about writing in detail about the origins of kana on a per-kana basis, I would suggest an article on "Origin of kana" with section headings for each kana you want to discuss, if you have enough material that it will make hiragana or katakana too big, of course. If there is so much stuff on one kana that you actually need a whole article on it, I'd be surprised. Spreading origins all over the place in fifty different articles doesn't make any sense, since the hiragana and katakana are all very closely related to each other and the history is the same. --DannyWilde 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bed now, as I've been working on these for the past four hours, so you'll know why my reply will be delayed. Toothpaste 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's too much to ask that an article be born an adult. The purpose of stub tags is to indicate potential growth. These articles have the same potential as the articles on the letters of the Latin alphabet. The number of symbols, and that the language is foreign, might result in slower growth, so let's give them time. Fg2 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, just because this Wikipedia is written in the English language, is no reason for articles about Japanese kana to exist, and I feel it is just as justified here as on the Japanese Wikipedia. How are the Roman letter articles different from these? Also, I think saying, "You didn't read anything that was said," is a patronizing tactic way too common in Wikipedian discussion, which also applies to the other side, given a few people that, at first continued to site the article's location at の as a reason to delete even after I had moved it. Toothpaste 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


い

This is a mis-placed dictionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, already has い (and many others). As an encyclopaedia article, this article would have no hope of expansion, and would be under an English title anyway, per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). Uncle G 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the new No (kana) version -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、 ,yamemashou やめましょう,sayounaraさようなら:佐様奈良--Jondel 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do not believe that "heavy storage issues" are close to being a problem or are likely to be a problem in the future. It seems to me that this is not a good reason for wishing to delete or prohibit certain types of articles. Lupin|talk|popups 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の. Toothpaste 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge... somewhere. I don't see the reasoning behind deleting letters of languages with lots of letters if we have quite respectable articles on languages with fewer letters. It does need more information if it is to stand as an article in its own right, though. Lupin|talk|popups 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That we have articles on the languages is no reason to have articles on the individual words in those languages. That is what a dictionary is for. As I have already pointed out both at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の and above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's Wiktionary's job. If you think that い needs pictures, or pronunciation guides, or Unicode information, or attached audio files (which will being it up to the level of the other dictionary articles that have these things), then please add them. But turning the encyclopaedia into a dictionary, counter to the official policy, is needless duplication. The dictionary is right there, and will take all of the dictionary content that editors have to offer. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are entries for the characters of the Latin alphabet and on some unicode characerts, so there is good reason to believe that a decent article can be written on each individual kana character. Note that I don't hold similar optimism for primary sch**ls. Pilatus 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For good articles on these characters, see the dictionary, which has had lots of such articles since 2003. The dictionary is the place for writing articles about words, and many such articles have already been written. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a word but a glyph from a syllabary alphabet, and as such should be kept here. The article in its present form isn't a dictionary entry at all but an entry on the character. Pilatus 13:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please my explanation is already at no (kkana) Yuckfoo 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? There are only a few dozen kana, by the way, so comparing this to adding thousands of Chinese character articles is off the mark. -- Curps 05:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pilatus. Please try to avoid bias against non-English languages. --Last Malthusian 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter Isotalo 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia may suffer from systemic bias, but it's also en.wikipedia. Dict def articles about non-Roman symbols are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

あ

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い. Uncle G 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I like the new No (kana) entry -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued, merged

  • Comment. Dictionaries are for the physical written, spoken, and electronic symbols, how those symbols fit into larger physical expressions such as individual sentences, and the historical changes of the physical symbols. Encyclopedias explain the ideas those symbols refer to, and refer back to physical symbol history only when needed for disambiguation purposes. This goes doubly for individual letters. You wouldn't put an audio pronunciation on the wikipedia の page, any more than you would put 'his-t(&-)rE &v "ar-&-'zO-n& on the History of Arizona page. --Interiot 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't naturally think to look for a letter of a foreign alphabet in an English language dictionary --TimPope 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (moved above so comments aren't doubled) Why not? You find satsuma and seppuku and yakitori in an English dictionary. They're in an English dictionary because the definition is in English, not because the subject itself is english. --Interiot
      • Those are all words, these articles are about characters. I see a distinction. --TimPope 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And, as stated above, letters are even more low-level representations than individual prefixes, words, or phrases. You find pronunciation of words and a long list of historical spellings in dictionaries, but not in encyclopedias. That's because dictionaries describe how you write a word down, how you pronounce the word, how you attach it to other words. Encyclopedias describe the concept, history, and larger context that pops into your head when someone says/writes/types that word to you. Individual letters having nothing to do with abstract ideas in your head. There's clear precedent that pronunciation belongs in a dictionary, so it follows that how a letter or word is expressed in Unicode or Braille also belongs in a dictionary, because these are just different mechanisms for communicating between two people, but they don't have any impact on the higher-level thoughts a person has once the idea is communicated to them. Note that kanji (and chinese characters generally) blur the line between letters and words, and chinese characters clearly belong in a dictionary. --Interiot 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the information expressing how to pronounce it more similar to that of a. The only difference now is that Usage does not have its own section. Should I give it one? Toothpaste 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If given its own section, the Grammar section will be merged into Usage. This is similar to how "a" as an article is mentioned under the Usage section of a. I'm just using Latin alphabet articles as models. Toothpaste 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are also articles on pentagram, and ampersand. Some opponents seem to confuse syllabary with ideograms. Kana is syllabry, so its characters are letters. -Hapsiainen 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh. Ideograms clearly are dictionaries (eg. see character dictionaries). As for the difference between pentagrams and syllabary... You can stick a pentagram next to an octagon next to a circle, and it doesn't mean anything syntactically. Whereas, with syllabries and letters, their purpose is to be part of the language hierarchy (eg. letters form words, words form phrases, phrases form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs form encyclopedia entries (or something)). Letters are on the opposite end of the language hierarchy from where encyclopedias sit. --Interiot 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used pentagram and ampersand as examples of signs that have their own articles. I didn't say that pentagram is a letter or an ideogram. -Hapsiainen 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the standard I put forth in the couple of comments above, language-oriented graphemes should be placed only in a dictionary (contrary to current precedent), but non-language-oriented pictograms (such as a pentagram) should be placed only in an encyclopedia. So those were arguments for that position. Both Encarta and Merriam-Webster include entries for individual roman letters, so I suppose a safe way to rule on this would be to put the same/similar content on both wikipedia and wiktionary. But that's a bit of a weird solution, especially if we can find a standard that indicates which articles should go where. --Interiot 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As does Britannica. If this gets deleted, do you agree that a should be VFD'd? Toothpaste 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm proposing that if an organization produces both an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and makes them equally available (especially for free), it should not have duplicate entries for every single grapheme. So, yes, I'm suggesting the two articles should be merged. --Interiot 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a dictionary definition, and that pretty much says it all. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...so... The wiktionary entries should be VfDed? --Interiot 20:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can try, but I guess Wiktionary wouldn't take too kindly to proposing their article for deletion on Wikipedia :P. If by "VfD" you mean wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, I guess a dictionary entry could be written under that topic as well, so no. I hope you're not implying that wikt:encyclopedia should be deleted just because we have Encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think most people can understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. However, I don't understand how there's a difference between existing content for the grapheme articles (Braille, Unicode, audio pronunciation, part of speech usage, stroke order, etc). It seems to be the same on both sides. --Interiot 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am of the opinion that this is material that is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia, and maybe less appropriate for a dictionary entry. However, whether they think it is appropriate there is something they have to decide by themselves, and I'm saying that I think this is appropriate here in this discussion. There is no rule that content must not be duplicated on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as long as both communities want it. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, the suggestion then is that users should click on the interwiki link, and read through both articles at the same time, to make sure they get the full/best information? Or that one of us personally ferry information back and forth to create two copies of the best information? --Interiot 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as pre the precedent of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. --Carnildo 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some (not necessarily all) characters are notable --madewokherd 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until we delete Z. Seems a reasonable start. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep keep keep. Not only per precedent, but there's some damned interesting stuff in here. Are we supposed to go to Wiktionary to find out how the stroke order evolved? --Golbez 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The history of these ideograph and ideograph components is certainly encyclopedic, as is the practice of writing them and any notes on usage and significance (in the same manner as we have "grade A" or the quote "I am the alpha and omega"). Demi T/C 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A small correction: Japanese kana aren't ideographs. Anyway, I completely agree with your point. I hope something everyone will agree with is that the history of kana does belong in Wikipedia. But, before deciding whether to keep the article on that basis, please take a look at the two excellent existing articles, hiragana, and katakana. If there is a lot of information to include, it is possible that each individual character might need to have a history page, giving more details, but as I suggested above I think it would be better to integrate the information into one focused page if at all possible. --DannyWilde 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename in English, otherwise the articles are more or less useless. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The issue is that, I strongly believe it's a problem if the standards say that information should be completely duplicated in both places. At this point, there's precedent on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary (1), (2) to keep all the information discussed so far on either side. When AfD/RfDs come up, the easy thing to do is vote Keep, and act like a problem doesn't exist. So eventually this information will get copied to both sides, while all along, people aren't required to give reasoned arguments for or against the idea that it should be copied verbatim in both places. I'm a programmer, and one of the first things that was pounded into my head over and over, was that you don't keep information in multiple places unless there's a really really good reason, because it always causes more problems than you think it will, keeping them synchronized or coordinated wastes a lot of human time, and usually there's a simple technical or procedural fix for it. This discussion is made more important because we really are talking about duplicating hundreds and thousands of characters.         Most dictionaries and encyclopedias have characters in them. So people will come to either place looking for information. We're an electronic wiki, we're one community, not two, and we can do better. The solution is to put a redirect or interwiki link on the other side, and only store information on one side. And there is precedent for doing that too. --Interiot 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While there exists the potential to make a significant article for each of these, none of these has enough to justify a separate encyclopedia article at the moment. Caerwine 23:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Japanese alphabet? Keep, we have A, A (Cyrillic), Alpha (letter) and Æ, so why shouldn't we have articles on Kana, given that they are now at English titles? Alphax τεχ 13:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I'm not sure, but isn't this stuff better in commons? Anyways, get rid of all redlinks and NPOV the thing. And when I say get rid, I don't mean make an article. - Hahnchen 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sans broken links and NPOV. Gazpacho
  • Keep they might not all merit articles, but a fair number do. Not pov in concept at all. Far more important than many articles about U.S. news events that have a similar level of detail. It only reflects badly on America because Guantanamo Bay reflects badly on America - as many of America's traditional supporters agree, not to mention plenty of Americans. CalJW 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since when has it been anti-American to talk about those people that Americans have wrongfully incarcerated? Shall we delete Japanese internment in the United States too? FCYTravis 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthwhile list. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An important list. Even if the items in a list are not that notable the list can be. --Apyule 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep arg... why are we trying to fracture a fractured debate even more? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list itself is important, the people in are not so they red links should be removed (if anybody wants to expand on individual detainees they can do that within the article as none warrant their own).
  • Keep The existence of the prison at Gitmo is significant, and the list of names is also significant, although individually they do not merit their own articles. There are many such articles on wiki; see, e.g., Category:Lists of people who were executed. Brandon39 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please zoe do not try to delete something to make a point that is a waste of our limited resources so please do not do it again Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is yet another case, where a list is a good place to re-direct/merge minor articles to, instead of going through AFD for each one. No AFDs were needed to deal with this problem. The appropriate thing, was to discuss it centrally on the list's talk page, and merge/re-direct minor articles to the list. --rob 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but most of the people aren't notable enough for their own article. The ones that aren't should be redirected and the current red links should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Anti-Americanism can be solved by editing the top paragraphs, the red links by making the names non-linking. Removing the names altogether as now has been done, was a bad step, which I will be reverting. - Andre Engels 11:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is vitally important information concerning a significant and continuing political event. The article needs serious improvment, and accurate sources need to be cited the for content of the first two sections and the names on the list. I see no anti-Americanism in the article as it stands, and it should be kept and improved, redlinks or not. And when was the existence of numerous redlinks a reason for deletion? Well done to Andre Engels for restoring the full list. --Cactus.man>Reply 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, delink all the redlinks. Most of the names that do have links are so stubby they should be redirects to this list, anyway. Maybe someone could look into that. Proto t c 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that what you see? I see a few, which, at this point, remain small stubs. I see many that are several K in length, and I think almost all the remaining articles contain both noteworthy, verifiable facts and link to sources where those facts can be verified, or expanded.
  • I must be missing something. Could you please explain how redirecting an article back to the list improve the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the sourcing is suspect. needs clean up and sources. Joaquin Murietta 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you offer those name(s) of the entries whose sourcing you find "suspect"? Since I worked on trying to make sure there was at least one source for each entry I would be happy to set your mind at ease. -- Geo Swan 23:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider (comic)

A webcomic which can be found here, on a website a website with an Alexa rank of over 450,000. If a page were made about well-of-souls.com, where the comic is hosted, it would most probably be deleted. Yet because this is a minor webcomic hosted on that site, it deserves its own article! Such is the failing of WP:COMIC. I do not want to endorse WP:COMIC in any sort of way, but this fails even the massively lax inclusion criteria. - Hahnchen 01:42, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slumming

Nn neologism. --Blackcap | talk 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nom removed. I came across this when all it said was about it being a phrase in Good Will Hunting, apparently not a neologism, keep. --Blackcap | talk 04:51, 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.

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, withdrawn by nominator Pilatus 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Achieri

Delete - This guy claimed to be pope. So what? No claims of a significant number (or any) followers. Anybody can claim to be pope, king, god, or whatever. By itself that means nothing. Also, happening to have the same name as another person (even if that person is notable) isn't signficant either. rob 02:09, 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 speedy delete. --Phroziac(talk) 00:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtz

Hoax/Personal essay--Shanel 02:13, 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 speedy delete. --Phroziac(talk) 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jubin Jacob

non-notable person. Less than 1,000 Google hits, even assuming they are all the same person, which I doubt Johntex\talk 02:21, 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 No Consensus-Default to keep 11 keep/10 delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Brown school

non notable Johntex\talk 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The school was founded in 1893, and I suspect it has some history and alumni worth mentioning, if it was given some time. --rob 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be expanded to include historical relevance or notability. Otherwise, delete. Compare this Brown school to The Brown School here in Louisville, Kentucky. Some relevance is included in the latter. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Since 1893" indicates a long history with lots of details to be found. A very good school stub so far, and will be improved over time. However, I would encourage anyone feeling bold to move it to a more specific name as soon as one is decided. Unfocused 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20+ schools are added a day. Nominating one now and again is pointless and mass deletion attempts are heavily defeated. Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So nobody should nom a school for deletion just because nominating 1 is "pointless" in your view and mass noms are frowned upon? That is ridiculous reasoning. Unless there is a policy that all schools are notable, noms like this are going to happen and should happen until there is a standard set for notabilty of schools. Just because you don't agree isn't reason enough for someone who believes schools are not notable to stop nominating them.--Isotope23 18:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the facts that it achieves nothing and creates bad feeling are. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still, there is no policy to prevent a nom for deletion. I understand where you are coming from CalJW but just because it ruffles a few feathers is no reason to abstain from a nom for AfD. I also disagree with your contention that it achieves nothing: it keeps the issue of school notability alive on the AfD pages. Hopefully this will prompt a discussion where a consensus can be reached pertaining to school notability. Otherwise we will be having this conversation over and over...--Isotope23 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have 100+ articles written on non-notable people and websites every day. The fact they're written doesn't have any bearing on their keepability. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people believe all schools have notable. We have the upper hand and have established a de facto policy. Schools shouldn't be nominated just as countries shouldn't be nominated. On the other hand almost no-one believes all people are notable and many biographical articles are deleted every day. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many schools have to survive the AfD process before we can declare that a concensus exists "not to delete school articles" simply because they are about schools? What percentage of nominated school articles must survive the AfD process before we can declare such a concensus? How many poorly-written articles have to be fixed through the AfD process before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to just to fix a poorly written school article rather than immediately send it over to AfD"? How many months of schools surviving the AfD process are needed before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to work together to build the quality of school articles instead of gaming to system in a vain hope to get even one school article deleted"? While these are partly rhetorical questions, I think that those that nominated and vote to delete school articles on the basis that either A) "They are schools and non-notable" and/or B)"This school article is poorly written", should consider answering the questions. How long must the charade of AfD rules-gaming continue?--Nicodemus75 08:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no particular indication of notability. DES (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets my second criteria for keeping a school - open since (well) before WWII. -- BD2412 talk 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These sort of time wasting exercises can be avoided by either tacking on a {{school-stub}} or merging the article somewhere until it can be expanded. There is demonstrable evidence that school articles are not deleted when nominated here, so it is not unreasonable to ask that people stop nominating these and find something more productive to do with their time. My personal reasons for keeping, in addition to the fact that this school is over 112 years old, are posted at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:32 PM ESY

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:24, 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.

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 attack page --Doc (?) 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The human lobster

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not assert notability, in fact, the opposite. --Blackcap | talk

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad spelling and grammar

There are only 13 Google hits for "bad spelling and grammar" tim bowen, most of them Myspace pages and the like. (The title is an accurate description of this article, by the way.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD page blanked by 68.88.177.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:03, 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. Robert 22:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal Sheet!

A webcomic hosted on keenspace, and can be found here. The Alexa report shows no mention of Scandal Sheet on its report for keenspace, and its forums is a ghosttown. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this website above all the other more popular websites out there. A webcomic is no more notable than any other website, and just because it has surpassed one hundred strips does not make it notable, no matter what WP:COMIC says. - Hahnchen 03:03, 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.

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 keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 05:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne & Shirley

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world is familiar to it.205.188.116.11 03:13, 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.

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 keep as invalid nom. FCYTravis 05:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (TV series)

This article is too stupid to be an encyclopedia article. Educational rating of ZERO. Only Americans are familiar to that show205.188.116.8 03:20, 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.

{{subst:void|1=This template must be substituted. Replace {{afd2 with {{subst:afd2.}}

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about mothers

Seems like this list is potentially unmaintainable. Some people might treat this like "List of songs about being a motherfucker", "List of songs with the use of the word 'mother'" and other possible wording.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Christopher Walken. Robert 23:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walken in 2008 Campaign

This article is a hoax, as documented on wiki's article on Christopher Walken. Brandon39 03:28, 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. — JIP | Talk 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses by Anhui police

Once all the inaccuracies and POV statements are removed, this article has literally nothing (0 words) left:
Human rights frequently are abused by police of Anhui province of China. Says who? And what exactly is so special about the situation in the province of Anhui as opposed to the rest of China that merits this article? This has to be seen in the context that Anhui still is seen as a part of China which is less developed than the entire East of China excluding Manchuria. Patently false. Manchuria is far being from the poorest region of eastern China. Henan, Jiangxi, Shanxi, and Anhui all have GDP per capita lower than Manchuria.
It is administered by the provincial Public Security Bureau, whose director is Cui Yadong. Provinces in China are administered by Party Committees and the Provincial People's Governments. Public Security Bureaus are subordinate entities. This statement is laughably false.
In 1995 police in Anhui province launched a campaign to hit and eradicate five religious groups. Source? Which five?
Also, the first external link adds nothing to the topic of human rights abuses in Anhui, and the second link isn't even about Anhui at all. ran (talk) 03:40, 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 (12 delete, 5 keep). Robert 22:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East campus

A non-notable dorm at MIT.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slugfest

Non-notable floor of a MIT dorm.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes don't forget Fourth East, a redirect page. CambridgeBayWeather 03:59, 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. Robert 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreshadowed media titles

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --NeilN 04:04, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants this article deleted. (A modicum of research shows that the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies would have been satisfied in any event.) Uncle G 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Keil

I'm actually voting to keep; I jumped the gun on this one, and googled for "Lillian Kell" rather than "Lilian Keil". I'm leaving this on the list only because of the notice not to delete the afd notice until the matter has been resolved. Brandon39 03:58, 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 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Competition

Orignal research? Nonsense? Call it what you want... NeilN 04:22, 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 merge Woohookitty 10:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Students' Union Offices

Useless article. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:27, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gross-out songs

Listcruft NeilN 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sarcasm wasn't very well written ;-). I agree with Dottore So! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 17:01, 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. Additionally, this was already on BJAODN last time i looked. --Phroziac(talk) 00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a PBJ

Don't know if this is a joke (the text gets pretty sarcastic), or just a confused new user. Either way, there has to be something to do with this. Delete. Tzaquiel 04:34, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as on attack page about Jorn Barger. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jornbarger

Delete. Nonsense. --Salleman 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Nobel Prize. – Rich Farmbrough 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics

Badly-named OR. DS 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I go for a merge. Who is going to type the whole thing in the encyclopaedia anyway ? Tintin 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly an original research. Google comes up with a lot of links starting with this Tintin 23:31, 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.

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 because the page had been edited so that the reason for deletion did no longer apply. - Andre Engels 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids of Western Australia

This article is written in such a way that it's nothing more than linkspam. I've got no problem with the subject material, but it needs to be written in a much more encyclopeadic fashion. I've removed the URL to defeat the linkspamming. jmd 05:06, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Alekar

Not sure if this ought to be speedy or not. Seems like nn-bio and or patent nonsense. jmd 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Alekar or delete them both as nn and promoting. Seems nn here in the States, perhaps a notable tome in India? >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may sound promoting, but I believe it is a good entry. I have read the book in the original language, and it is quite funny, to be honest. I suggest it should be redirected, not merged, as some people will want to search for their favorite character on Wikipedia. Or, this page could be translated to Marathi, the language of the book. Also, Wikipedia is not important only to Americans, is it? HistThe Big Guy
  • Delete Well, I live in Maharashtra, and I've never heard of this book or author. Not that I read Marathi novels, but a google search only points to only one site [5], which suggests that this is probably a prank or so. Certainally non notable, unless user:The Big Guy can give us an ISBN number, and prove otherwise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:37, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooheys New

NN. Local only. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THat would require a merge and redirect instead of a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyotei

Delete as promotional advertising. Еdit 05:41, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4diskclean gold

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean -- Ketil Trout 06:19, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4diskclean

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean gold -- Ketil Trout 06:21, 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 KEEP. Robert 00:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJDJ

Not notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:29, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red White and Brainwashed

One track from some CD. Doesn't quite fit the Speedy criteria, so I better ask ;-) Lars T. 08:35, 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Dodd

Hoax. (Compare Special:Whatlinkshere/Charlie_Dodd and also Tiffin Boys' School. The dates don't match (the school opened in 1880), and the image cries hoax, too.) Delete unless verified. Lupo 09:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete-I have put in correct dates corresponding to when he lived. Somebody had been lying, he never went to Tiffin school but he was minister on the council of leicester. I can't verify if he was minister of transport but he was on the council. P.s He did not die from liver failure, that is somebodies idea of a "joke". Grabbo

  • Comment I cannot confirm Mr.Dodd's attendance at any particular School, nor Tiffin Boys' Schoool. However, having a flatmate that Studied in Leicester, who worked part-time in the House of Records, I can confirm that Mr.Dodd is indeed mentioned as being on the council for at least 2 terms, I am planning a trip to Leicester soon, and shall post my findings on his status as Minister for Transport. Dupe
  • Comment reverted vandalism on this vote. -- Sliggy 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no reference to this person as described in the (revised) article, and there is suspiciously little detail about the "drastic railway reforms" introduced by Mr. Dodd. Sliggy 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits on "Charlie Dodd" + "Minister of Transport". - Andre Engels 08:16, 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. — JIP | Talk 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ong

Probable fabrication. I don't think there was any person named "Ong Tzu Sun" who changed his name to "Alex Ong". Some google hits on "Alex Ong" and "Alexander Ong" (they are fairly common names) but nothing on "Ong Tzu Sun". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I take care to inform you that google is not the source of all mankind and will consistently fail to provide you with all the right answers. Also, Lupo has been on my case for ages making his opinion incredulous.

Above comment was posted on 12:44, September 29, 2005 (UTC) by 213.18.248.17 (talk · contribs). Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do British school kids have nothing better to do than to fool around here? Remember Ong, Nebraska? Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind user:lupo that you cannot change user's pages at a whim. the other false "Bude" is a nickname by some prankster i imagine; my name is my real second name. I hope this witch hunt will end. Bjude

Cut the crap and get back to learning. Lupo 12:58, 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.

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 under A7 --Doc (?) 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Willems

Vanity article by a non-notable amateur musician The Land 10:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is another page whith the same content JanW. That was an error due to unfamiliarity whith Wikipedia. The other page can be deleted. This one (Jan Willems) can not please.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 under A7 --Doc (?) 12:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JanW

As Jan Willems; non-notable vanity page from an amateur musician The Land 10:42, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fyx

Looks like fancruft or something, but I have no idea of what. Maybe some private joke? - Andre Engels 10:47, 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 no consensus. Robert 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Davis (footballer)

Player on the Sydney Swans list. Recreate the article when/if he actually plays a game. JPD 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Playing a game I find a rather non-stringent criterium still. One season in the base squad might cut it. - Andre Engels 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's worthwhile to cover the entire squads of major clubs, and he is at a leading club in Australias main sport, which has something like the 6th highest average attendance of any league in the world. CalJW 20:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon the rationale provided by CalJW. Hall Monitor 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His team just won the AFL Grand Final, one of Australia's largest sporting events, so I believe his entry is valid. Cnwb 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm fine with creating articles on players - even those who have played very few games. But this guy hasn't even played one. It's vanity if I ever saw it. Ambi 05:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. In principle, I don't like to vote to delete people, but I think that if we do -- and we do -- a criterion for sportspeople that they should have played one game for a professional club is not wholly unreasonable. This guy would be the absolute borderline, I think, if you took that view. Grace Note 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am have been a Swans fan and passionate supporter of Australian football since a young age, and I still nominated this article for deletion. I don't think the importance of the sport or the team are relevant here. If he had played in the Grand Final, or even one game in the season, I would be more than happy to keep it, but as it is there's not much to go in this article, and no guarantee that there ever will be. JPD 08:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per JPD, who seems the only knowledgeble one about the article at the moment. Proto t c 10:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who has been creating these stubs, I am actually not sure...I know Matthew Davis has played a few games, but as a relatively new fan I think I will keep him. I mean if you're going to delete Matty Davis why not go ahead and delete Stevie Doyle as well? J L C Leung 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Doyle has played 40 senior games for the Swans, Matthew Davis has played 0. That's the difference from my point of view. Do we create these stubs for every player who has ever been on a team's list for 1 or 2 years? JPD 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waitaminute...I thought he played at LEAST one. Maybe I could be wrong...but when I created all those stubs I looked at the Swannies' senior player page to start it all. So I really was quite blind to who has played a game at the AFL level or not...and besides, I did all those stubs at 4:30 in the morning two days after the qualifying final vs. West Coast. I'm sorta bound to make a mistake or two...! --J L C Leung 09:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The individual players' pages at the moment list all the games played by that player in the 2005 season. Nothing is listed for M Davis. He didn't play last year either. The only reason I nominated this article for deletion is because it seemed it must have been a mistake. JPD 10:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desempacotamento

The assertion that "Desempacotamento belongs to the top [pub quiz] teams in The Netherlands" notwithstanding, this does not appear to be notable.--Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity. Considering the growing importance of the pubquiz in Holland it is in fact notable to be a top quiz team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 16:50, 2005 September 29. First edit.

Google seems oblivious to any mention of this team other than their own website (though not knowing Dutch, it's difficult to tell). --Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is similar to online gaming clans, who are also regularly deleted. Playing pub quizes may be serious for the members of this team, but: "Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity." is seriously overstated. I am from the Netherlands and study in Utrecht and haven't come across any pub quiz players in the 5 years I've been studying here. If this was as serious as claimed, I would've at least seen more announcements and come across fellow students and PhDs playing which I have not. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, MgM's remark about not having come across players in the last 5 years in Utrecht is irrelevant. I've lived in Utrecht for 9 years and have not met any Mah-Jong players in that period. Despite that, I would welcome a Wikipedia-page about the best Mah-Jong players in Holland. Besides, MgM uses his own rather limited empirical experience as argument, which doesn't do much to help his case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 17:25, 2005 October 10. Second edit.
  • Delete per Mgm's magical analysis. -- BD2412 talk 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V, WP:N. encephalon 10:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonversation

neologism Ashenai 11:33, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Manga Returns

  • Delete. I'm a fan of this manga (that's how I found this page) but I don't think this specific forum is close to passing any reasonable test of notability. -AceMyth 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain about that. It gets 970 Google hits, most of which seem to be relevant. I haven't checked their "14,000 members" claim, but if true, I'd think we should err on the side of keeping. I abstain, for now. --Ashenai 11:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled it myself and found TONS of spam search results. Little to no "I've just been to Naruto manga returns, and..." or "Check Naruto Manga Returns, I think you can get what you're looking for there", or whatever, but lots of "porn tennis Natalie Portman Naruto Manga Returns free DVDs". Fishy, if I may say so. --AceMyth 12:36, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLUM

Personal vanity plus advertising. Also unencyclopaedic. Ben W Bell 11:42, 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. Robert 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward Scripts

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Scripts entry which would probably be a breach of copyright anyway. Delete CLW 11:51, 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 merge and redirect to Fast Forward. – ABCD✉ 04:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward Series One

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Series One entry which is mostly another more-of-the-same non-encyclopedic rambling list of various sketches. Delete CLW 11:55, 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 04:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avivasoft

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement for non-notable software company. 18 hits for avivasoft, but take this Google test with a grain of salt as the company is from Hong Kong. android79 12:28, 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.

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 Nomination Withdrawn. android79 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Ralph

No vote. Wasn't sure if this was an A7 speedy so I brought it here. I know nothing about rugby, so I can't tell if this article asserts notability or even if it's a flat-out hoax. android79 12:29, 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 keep and tag for cleanup. --Phroziac(talk) 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Petroleum Institute

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement. Had contact info before I removed it from the article. 98 Google hits for "vietnam petroleum institute". android79 12:31, 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. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 were deleted by User:JIP before this closure; I deleted Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Robert 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Avenues 1, 2, 5 and 10

This is a collective AfD for Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 was nominated for deletion a few days ago; its AfD page is here.

All four roads are passing through the housing estate of Ang Mo Kio New Town, which has already a section on transportation where these roads are mentioned and put into context. As they have no cultural or historic significance and there is no point in having separate entries on every single one of them the lot ought to be deleted. Pilatus 12:37, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rambutans for Ang Mo Kio?

This is a fairly incoherent essay that discusses the etymology of Ang Mo Kio, a new town development in Singapore. It's nowhere near an encyclopedic format, not sure what can be salvaged from here. Pilatus 12:41, 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.

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 DELETE by user:Android79 as "Hoax vandalism". Thryduulf 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Roberts

Self-admitted hoax. Delete, including the image. Lupo 12:43, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeolipilanthropy

This is a neologism and possibly nonsense as well. The only Google hit for Aeolipilanthropy is a Wikipedia mirror site. Thryduulf 12:49, 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. --Phroziac(talk) 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magatama (disambiguation)

It lists only two elements, one of which has been voted for deletion and is unlikely to return Loona 11:18, 26 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. This is by a narrow margin, as contrary to obvious expectations, the anonymous IP who added the keep vote does have other contributions. But I personally feel this is a very non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dopetacular

Neologism / Dic. def.

I have heard this word several times in my area. I agree with Mr. Lewis's post. I do not feel it should be deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Revolution

  • Delete. Non-notable nonsense. Appears to be related to deleted article Pharsh. android79 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Never before have I seen so much nonsense thrown up in just one article here. We should get rid of this idiocy as soon as possible --SoothingR 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedy. This is a non-notable phenomenon probably dreamed up by some kid in junior high with way too much free time. But similarly "silly" memes _have_ achieved notable status. This one hasn't, but that's only made clear after a Google search. --Ashenai 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article itself calls this so-called "silly revolution" - and I quote - the most pointless example of social activism since the pro-Star Trek demonstrations. End of quote. Why even add an entry in an encyclopedia if it's entirely pointless? --SoothingR 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • AYBABTU is entirely pointless, and yet we have a sizeable article on it. We want to include stuff that's notable, not necesarily stuff that has a point. The subject of this article is neither, of course, but that's a different issue. :) --Ashenai 13:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly, but true: Article re Pharsh Militia and the "Silly Revolution" in The Jerusalem Post, Israel's largest English-language daily newspaper. --DardaDos 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single mention in a human interest piece in a newspaper does not make something notable. Besides that, the Wikipedia article is still absolute nonsense. android79 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: First of all, Nonsense it is not, beacause it states true facts (as silly as they may be), and secondly, while I agree that the article linked cannot be considered an epitome of journalistic endeavours, the many other, more in-depth articles (including Television, Radio, Printed and Electronnic Media) that could be presented are all in Hebrew, and as such will probably not be accorded the significance due to them.DardaDos 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting! This only highlights the shortcomings of the article, though; it says nothing at all about Jerusalem, Pharsh, and gives no names at all. If the article is cleaned up, actual encyclopedic facts are included, and notabilitiy is asserted, I could easily see changing my vote. Please note, though, that while Wikipedia articles can be about very silly topics, they should never themselves be silly. --Ashenai 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; regardless of merit/lack of merit of article itself, the underlying phenomenon is insufficiently notable. --MCB 17:42, 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 No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Christos Karaolis

Not notable. Also, the subject of the page wants it deleted. 163.1.239.184 13:32, 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. Robert 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim poland

This appears to be a garage band. The article fails to assert notability, and a Google search yields largely unrelated results. Ashenai 13:55, 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 Move to Cisco Global Exploiter. Rx StrangeLove 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Global Explorer

This information is unverifiable, a web search reveals almost nothing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 by Ahoerstemeier --Doc (?) 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Target identification

Nonsense page The Land 14:04, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph

Delete, dicdef of an interjection with no actual meaning (making it IMO not even suitable for a transwiki to Wiktionary Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:09, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GalaxyX

I was as big a TNG fan as anyone, but I still say that a page of speculations on the detailed technical specs of a class of starship that only appeared once, in an alternate future, is cruft. DS 14:08, 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.

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 by User:R. fiend (and quite rightly) --Doc (?) 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical University of Ilmenau

Content free speedy candidate The Land 14:13, 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.

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 : turned into redirect to Light. Hext time be bold. mikka (t) 18:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vislble light

Virtually no content. That which there is should be in Light The Land 14:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Joseph Samuels

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Stern

Hoax page; subject of the article does not exist. Google gives 346 hits [11], but "Dane Stern" cricket gives only two, neither relevant. Loganberry (Talk) 14:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Joseph Samuels

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29&oldid=24320921"