Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 13

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cdc (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 13 October 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party at ryans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 12 >

Purge server cache

October 13

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wait and The Wait

Articles' content (they're the same) doesn't seem to have any merit. Searching on Google finds no relevant hits. Kmart doesn't seem to sell any such shirt as the article claims. —Cleared as filed. 00:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

  • Delete per nom. This page is by the author of Cassiopean, also marked for deletion and similar in style and content to this page. It is pure vanity and nothing more. It would make an OK (but wordy) userpage, but doesn't belong as a Wikipedia entry. - Sensor 00:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have proposed two of her three articles on Wikipedia for deletion. See Cassiopean. Please, delete with prejudice. - Sensor 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in that vein, check out Cassiopaeans and 6th density. Tearlach 18:34, 14 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. Hermione1980 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleTech

Dicdef, and not a very notable one at that. Peruvianllama 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted as worthless garbage hoax. DS 02:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wright

The idea of a Pacific Island unknown to atlases or google called "Natasha Wright" has set off by bullshitometer. Looks likely to be an abstruse and esoteric attempt at vanity. "Delete" unless evidence of a real island of this name is found. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College Libertarians of Towson

It's not notable. Not the kind of thing you put in an encyclopedia- a random student organization that doesn't even sound like it's making an impact on campus. 199.72.97.65 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Delete[reply]

  • Delete: I hate to agree with Anons, but he's right. This sounds like badvertising through and through. Karmafist 02:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An subsection in the Libertarian Party article about the college movement in general, and even providing links to some college clubs, would be fine, but this is pretty much not noteworthy at all. - Sensor 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist on a single campus are normally not encyclopedic. Note that the national College Libertarians could reasonably be the subject of an article, but no such article exists as of this writing. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete smacks of vanity. Sorry, guys, I'm one of you too. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable vanity and shameless self promotion Fsdfs 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passionate Keep This article, although small in scope, is quite factual and informative. Specific Organizations DO make it in this encyclopedia, and such entries are extremely resourceful. It is not trivial, it has a local impact. It is noteworthy, for if one is not impacted locally, such an article like this is necessary to learn about it. The vanity and propaganda claims can be addressed through revision. It is also historical and archival, as well as pertinent research material. --Malecasta 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would, however, agree that the Constitution in the article is a "source text," and it should probably be moved to wikisource. --Malecasta 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but this article is definitely NN. I mean, if the C.L. of T. had started the political career of America's first Libertarian president, that would be one thing. But this group is really really trivial. I don't mean to belittle its accomplishments, but it's a small club in a small college for a very small political party. Again, delete. - Sensor 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response I would agree you have a valid point. I think the charge, then, would be to show the impact and discussion about this organization, and I think substantial commentary, even if local, is enough to make the entry notable. If there is discussion and secondary work about this group, then that should be enough to reference it and make the topic available to people that would not be familiar with the topic. Instead of famous being the standard for noteworthy, this is my understanding of the criteria. So I guess it would be famous on a very small scale. This protects against arbitrary judgements of triviality and size. Keep, Revise --Malecasta 06:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice effort, Malecasta, but there is ample precedent that college groups are not retained around here unless they are exceptionally noteworthy. It is normally very easy for a single individual to found one and receive some local press coverage. Xoloz 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To say that the CLT isn’t making an impact on campus is an unfair characterization. Perhaps the impact is relatively small, but it's definitely existent. We have several events lined up, and we will be planning more next semester. In fact, I just got through a planning meeting for the Marriage Equality event referenced on the article, which will be held on Valentine's Day next semester. We're reserving an entire field on campus for this event; we're scheduling speakers; we're creating a petition to legalise gay marriage in Maryland just for this event. One can hardly say there's no impact. As for the comments about the college being small, from what I’ve heard, this (i.e. Towson University) is the second largest college in Maryland. I believe University of Maryland is the only one larger. As for vanity, that's perhaps a fair claim, as I didn't bother creating any article for the other groups on campus. But this is because I know more about the CLT and its history than I know of the other groups. Allixpeeke 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I totally agree with this, but it has been suggested that college organizations, by precedent, should not be published unless their impact is exceptionally noteworthy (see Xoloz). I personally disagree with this policy, if it does exist, and I see hundreds of reasons why it should be Kept and Revised. I am very weary of something being deleted because someone thinks it is insignifcant, and I've tried to give a correct interpretation of the Noteworthy policy above. I strongly believe if there is secondary discussion of any kind about the organization, no matter how small or local, it should be kept. This consensus, no matter how small, should ALWAYS override the arbritrary judgements of some, and even a majority, that the article is trivial and not important. Otherwise, a lot would not be in this encyclepida because of the prejudiced and provincial views of some (or most) people against many topics. The only consideration here that has been convincing to me is the Precedent of how the encyclopedia has handled these issues in the past. I think that's a fair standard to apply here, but I will modify this to say I do not believe the precedent is right and perhaps the precendent should be ignored because it is wrong and not in good spirit. I think people are concerned about vanity and advertising, and there is no reason that cannot be addressed through REVISION. I would hate to see this article go on account of "delete-hawking," deleting for the sake of the good of the encyclopedia on very simple grounds. This article, obviously, deserves a broader consideration. --Malecasta(talk) 03:57, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
      • Clarification Definately, the "upcoming events" section should go, go, go. I am not urging this page be kept for self-promotion. This should be a topic about this orgainization. This should not be the origanization's page. Surely they can get their own web space for that. --Malecasta(talk) 04:12, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed all self-promotion references, and I removed the Constitution because it can be found in an external link. I believe the vanity issues have been addressed. The article, as it appears now, is a factual entry about the Organization, which should probably be expanded upon to further demonstrate the topic's significance. Finally, the initial reason for deletion was that the page was "not noteworthy." Not being noteworthy is not a major criteria for deletion, and a factual topic about anything, should be signifiant. This article should be expanded to further show its significance and secondary discussion. Of course, I refer to the previous comments I have already made about deletion for not being noteworthy. I believe a factual entry that shows an organization of relevance and significance exists here, and it can be developed. I think the concerns in the reason for deletion have been addressed or greatly mitigated.Keep, Revise, Expand --Malecasta(talk) 04:33, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Delete - no amount of expansion will make this entity significant. WIKI is not the place for listing every college's individual organizations. Storm Rider 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doodles Six

The article is a copy of the creator's User page, and appears to be a blog entry or summary of an adventure game session. Non-encyclopedic. Corvus 01:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guamania

Tagged as nonsense, but isn't patent nonsense. Sounds pretty well made up, though. Delete some amazing verification notforthcoming. -Splashtalk 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete --Celestianpower hablamé 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shell

Ok, I happen to have a lot of respect for Tim, being a board member and such. And I don't believe much in the notability thing. But, Tim doesn't seem notable to me. His assertions to notability are being the Bomis CEO and being a Wikimedia board member. We should not make special exceptions for people who work with Wikimedia, this is bad. It seems like a huge self-reference to me. And, it uses information from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I feel this is original research because it's written by Wikimedia. I hope to soon become as notable as Tim Shell, and I would make a self-nomination for VFD if an article was written about me at the same level of notability. --Phroziac(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just as notable as Sonja Elen Kisa. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 21:05, 12 October 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep. CEOs are notable, and board members of the 45th most popular web site further increases notability. Unfocused 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... the Sonja Elen Kisa argument isn't very compelling. Regardless. I don't think every CEO is notable; there needs to be auxillary reasons for notability (notable company, media coverage, etc.) Bomis fall just short of notability IMO, so I don't really see Mr. Shell as notable as a CEO. Board Membership does not confer notability in and of itself. I wonder if we would even be havign this discussion if Mr. Shell had no involvment in Wikipeida and was just a CEO of some random dotcom with a board membership on some other random project...--Isotope23 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own opinion regarding the value of this article has nothing to do with Bomis or Wikipedia. Any CEO and/or Board member of similar sized organizations should have an article. Tim Shell's relationship with Bomis and Wikipedia means he has an article sooner than other similar people. Please don't make comments that don't assume good faith on the part of people whose opinion is opposite your own. Unfocused 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to concur with unfocused. --Phroziac(talk) 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My musing on whether or not we would be having this discussion if Mr. Shell was not involved in wikipedia was not an assumption of bad faith on your part Unfocused and I'm sorry if you took it that way... it was just a comment and it wasn't directed at you. I simply don't agree with your contention that every CEO of a mid-sized company is notable. In my opinion that is extremely low bar to set for notability. That's just my 2 cents and you are certainly entitled to disagree with me. On another note, I would support a merge of this information into the existing Bomis article as has been suggested here by others.--Isotope23 18:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just so you know, I hadn't intended to "get in your face" over this, but only to point out that your sentence beginning with "I wonder if we would even..." seems to presume improper bias on the part of the article author and all subsequent "keep" voters. It really was a very minor point, perhaps I should have put it in small text. Unfocused 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest keep ever. Bomis doesn't fit my "deserves an article on every CEO ever" criteria, and Wikipedia, in terms of the prominence of it, doesn't deserve an article on every board member ever in my eyes. And yet, we are Wikipedia. Obviously. And, honestly, I'm voting to keep because Mr. Shell is so notable in a Wikipedia context that it will help the project to have an article on him around. Did that make a lick of sense? Lord Bob 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is kept, I want to see articles on Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, Michael Davis, Florence Nibart-Devouard, et al. Rob Church Talk | FAD 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Bomis] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best guide to notability, be it of people, companies, software, products, or web sites, is whether other people, independent of the subject itself, have considered the subject to be notable. The litmus test for that, outlined to greater or lesser extent in all of our various notability criteria (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and so forth) is whether the subject has been written about in multiple separate published works that whose sources are independent of the subject xyrself. (WP:BIO talks about press coverage and independent biographies. WP:WEB talks about media attention. WP:CORP uses the broad term of published works, and is explicit about excluding self-promotion.)

    Furthermore, as Geogre says, it is a disservice to AFD and to the encyclopaedia as a whole to apply criteria erratically and inconsistently. It is wrong to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, its board members, and its web sites to standards that are different to the standards to which one holds other companies, people, and web sites.

    Researching this person, I have yet to find anything published about him by someone independent of Bomis or the Wikimedia Foundation that isn't a straight one-sentence mention, as an aside, that parrots Wikimedia:Board of Trustees, Bomis (from the version before Jimbo Wales removed mention of Tim Shell from that article), or Wikimedia. See the one-sentence mention of Tim Shell in this article in Florida Trend for example.

    Additionally, Lord Bob's argument is wrong. Claiming that someone is notable within the group of users of a web site does not wash for Wikimedia board members and Wikmedia project editors any more than it washes when people assert that their BBS sysop is notable within the users of their BBS, or that a web discussion forum participant is notable within that discussion forum, even though unremarked upon elsewhere. Other people, independent of the subject, have to regard the subject as notable, and have to demonstrate the extent to which they find the subject notable by creating and publishing works of their own about it.

    As such, this person does not satisfy the criteria for notability. Delete. Uncle G 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asserting that he was notable because he's notable within Wikipedia, I was asserting that, for the sake of smooth operation of Wikipedia as a website, it would be valuable to have articles on the board members. It's not that he's notable as such, it's that he's notable enough within Wikipedia that Wikipedians would have an easier time of it knowing who he is. Not that this article is that great, but it might get expanded. As you might have guessed from the weakness of my keep, I'm not entirely sold on this argument but it's stuck in my head and I cannot ignore it. Lord Bob 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The place for the Wikimedia Foundation to publish articles on its board members is the foundation's own wiki. And that's where it does publish them. See the hyperlink given above. As for the possibility that this article could get expanded: the immediate question is "expanded from what source?". As I pointed out above, the only source of information on this person that provides anything more than a sentence of information is the Wikimedia Foundation, and the article already contains everything available from that source. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care. Or maybe that would be Neutral. Slightly leaning towards Merge and redirect. He is notable enough to be discussed somewhere for sure, but I don't know if that somewhere is his own article or not. I'll let other people answer that question. Bushytails 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I just voted to keep some article on a website that sells wristbands for fans of Crystal Palace, so I pretty much have to be an inclusionist for the next week or so, so yes, keep. Youngamerican 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with non-notable CEO of non-notable company regardless of establishment of wikipedia -- wikipedia does not have sweeping credibility to put itself in a posistion of notoriety. as far as it is concerned, it is self promotion which is most often grounds for deletion. final reason: vanity. Fsdfs 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Unfocused. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:17:28 Z
  • Delete. Verifiable does not equal encylopaedic. Proto t c 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Bomis and WMF. Delete, article does not establish notability. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Lord Bob. For me, this is about user convenience. A user might want to know about the people who run this place, and WP seems like to a logical place to uncover such information. As I see it, it isn't about a double standard as much as full disclosure of what makes WP run. Xoloz 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikimedia Foundation has its own wiki for full disclosure, and the page where it publishes information about its board members is hyperlinked to above. We also have Meta for foundation-wide things. The main article namespace at Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all. We should not be basing our judgements upon what meta-information about the foundation it might be handy to disclose, since that is a decision for the primary sources (e.g. what the foundation decides to disclose on its own web site about its board members), not the encyclopaedia. We should be basing our judgements upon whether this biographical article meets our criteria for inclusion of biographical articles. It is not about full disclosure, and is about double standards. Your argument is employing the very double standard that we shouldn't be employing. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree, Uncle G. While I was dimly aware that there other Wiki sources for this info, WP is the first place I (and I suspect most casual viewers) would look for this information. It needs to be here to be easily accessible, and I take easy accessibility to be part of full disclosure. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very carefully, but I knew my logic was endorsing a kind of double standard in the interest of this easily accessible, full disclosure. As with all policies, when there are conflicts of interest, one must decide which one believes to be more fundamental, and I take the view that administrative transparency mildly trumps or, at least, augments this case for, WP:BIO. In any event, either because you did not read carefully, or because I was unclear, I do feel your tone was unduly harsh. Xoloz 16:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are arguing on the flawed basis that Wikipedia is, and should be, the primary source for information on the Wikimedia Foundation, to the world and to Wikipedians. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and, as I've already pointed out, there are other wikis for that. Those wikis exist for the very administrative transparency you are looking for. We aren't here to host and publish primary source material for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for the Wikimedia Foundation any more than it is a hosting service for anyone else. It's clear, from the existence of the Foundation's wiki, that the Foundation doesn't expect us to be its hosting service, either. As I said, whether to have this biographical article in Wikipedia is not a matter of administrative transparency and full disclosure, and is a matter of double standards. If we had this little information about an executive of any other organization, which was only available from the person's autobiography on that organization's own web site and not verifiable from an independent second source, the consensus to delete would very probably be unanimous. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based upon the comments made by Lord Bob and Rob Church. Hall Monitor 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text is mostly from the Foundation wiki, which isn't really an external source, so not verifiable. (I voted deleted for Anthere and myself too). Angela. 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? The point of the externality of sources is whether they are trustworthy; if a source is trustworthy, then the information is verifiable. Are you suggesting that the Foundation wiki isn't trustworthy? Xoloz 11:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.

        Looking for multiple independent sources is just as much good encyclopaedism as it is good journalism. The problem with the source is not that it is external. It is that it is not independent of Tim Shell himself, and is tantamount to autobiography. As Wikipedia:autobiography says, and as the preceding quotation implies, autobiographies have verifiability problems. Furthermore: They definitely cannot contribute towards notability. Self-promotion does not automatically make one notable. Other people have to regard the person as notable. See above. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll respond here to all your points, though some of my counterpoints will be brief. In the case of a Wikimedia board member, WPians are uniquely positioned to maintain a verifiability check on the content that is posted in these articles, as least as it relates to relevant professional details. Zaphod Beeblebrox' autobio was not subject to Wiki revision; patently false claims are likely to be removed, given the dilligence and active interest of the community in its leaders.
As for the rest, I simply disagree that I proceed from a false premise. Experience indicates to me, and the Keep votes here do also, that Wikimedia's board members are more likely to remain unknown if some provision is not made for their information to be listed in article space; if your concern for a double standard is not calmed by a faith in the ability of our board members to be reasonable (and to be overseen by the Wiki editing community), then -- by all means -- tag them with a special disputed tag, highlight them in a caution color, bemark in any appropriate way to suggest that they are different. In the final analysis, though, I find that their special status within the Wikimedia world creates a special need for WP articles. I make this finding based on a firm belief that their biographies should be transparent, and that -- without WP articles -- they are not sufficiently so. Feel free to disagree, but I find the suggestion that my analysis is "false" to be strangely positivistic. We aren't discussing a bare philosophical theorem. We are considering alternatives for the priorities of the WP. You value more the strict enforcement of a guideline; I, an interest in making our leaders' information very easily viewable to even the most casual user. No one has a "false premise"; these are simply competing values in tension, each value with its own merit to recommend it. Xoloz 05:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Jkelly 21:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor the vengeful

Not enough context. The series is a redlinked so I can't tell if it is anime, computer game or what. Google gets less than ten distinct hits for "Trevor the vengeful" and most are wikipedia. Non-notable. My first thought was to contact the contributor and ask for additional information but it's an IP with only one contribution. RJFJR 01:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. DS 02:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isadore Twersky

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - 18 keep/15 delete (merge and move votes counted as keep) - 8 plain keep votes, 10 merge (including merge/redirect), 2 votes to just redirect. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


9814072356

Delete; a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is very big. We only have about 245 integer number articles. And that we take more space with an AfD thn the article does. And that 427 (number) quoted as an example by Uncle G was speedied because it looked like nonsense. In fact someone had put "square furlongs" as the unit, when it should have been cubic inches. Rich Farmbrough 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted when counting, user has 12 edits all of which are to AFD's. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with square number. Redirect if you must, though like Thivierr I can't imaging anyone thinking "Hmm. I wonder if the number nine billion eight hundred and fourteen million seventy-two thousand three hundred and fifty six has any interesting mathematical properties" and typing it into the search bar. --Last Malthusian 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More likely, why did I write down 9814072356? Or having discovered one of it's properties, wanting ito know if it has more. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete One interesting property is not enough to justify an article. This number is not even listed in the OEIS. The one interesting property can be mentioned in the page on 10^10, which has a listing for selected 10-digit numbers. PrimeFan 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep but move per consistency with other number articles. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote discounted when closing, IP's while encourged to comment cannot have their votes counted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention? Even though you may want to delete it, there is no reason to completely ignore it.
User's vote discounted when tallying, user only has 7 edits, 2 of which are to this RFA. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Toki Pona. -R. fiend 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Elen Kisa

The last deletion attempt on this article, which can be seen here, had either a 6 out of 13 or 7 out of 14 count for Keep by my account, depending on Ambi's vote, which I assumed to be a delete by defacto. Regardless of Ambi's intentions, this should have been closed as Keep, No Consensus rather than as a Keep, and the ensuing confusion in the conversation has led me to believe that another look at this is needed. Currently No Vote from me. Karmafist 02:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jan's comments below, I'm changing my vote to Merge or Redirect with Toki Pona, she's not notable on her own.
Ultimately, I believed that gaining a clear consensus after the last AfD was the largest issue here, but since that attempt was apparently percieved as a ploy in the continuing Deletionist/Inclusionist nonsense, apparently my original goal is being ignored. Therefore, I've decided to discard that goal and go with my opinion on the article itself rather than the AfD. Karmafist 05:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid misunderstandings, there's one thing I want to make crystal clear: I am not accusing you of any kind of ploys or deletionist nonsense. In fact, it's obvious to me that your intentions are honourable. My earlier remark concerned repeated AFDs against one article in general (an example that still gives me a bitter taste in my mouth is the case of Fyksland, which first survived two VFDs, then it was decided to merge and redirect Fyksian into it, and then it was killed in a third VFD after all). --IJzeren Jan 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Jan. I'm going to keep my vote, but i'm glad there's no hard feelings. Karmafist 16:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, an renewed AfD is way over the top if the only purpose is having the conclusion of a previous one reformulated, especially given the fact that the final result would be the same anyway. In your place, I would rather have contacted the administrator in question. --IJzeren Jan 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree to disagree, Jan. I reopened this vote largely because of the ambiguity that was caused by the admin who opened and closed this last time, Ambi. If I asked Ambi, that wouldn't help the other people(the reason how I found out about this article) that were somewhat perplexed at how the last AfD was closed, and she would have to repeat that task several times. That was probably a minor mistake since Ambi has a reputation as a great Wikipedian, so this is just to make sure what consensus is and to absolve her of any future problems from those ambiguities. Karmafist 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Stranger

According to IMDB there is in fact a movie with this title planned. However, production has now apparently pushed back, so that shooting hasn't even started. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we have no way of knowing what changes will happen before this movie finally actually exists (assuming it does get made.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I find that Kappa's penchant for inclusiveness often verges on the extreme, I find he usually musters an argument that should be taken seriously and is much more than just a cover for a knee-jerk keep vote. When I stated I don't understand what he means, I was being quite literal: viz, what is notably planning? Dottore So 11:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clumsy typing, halfway between "notable planning" and "notably in planning". 11:35, 14 October 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 Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Glory

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanvas Grey

Delete. Yes, they have their own website. Yes, they appear notable within a small geographic area. But they do not appear to have released and physical recordings and, wrt WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete By my count there are 12 votes to delete and 5 votes to keep, but three of those 5 keep votes are suspect. Even if I counted them all, there is better than a 2/3rds consensus to delete.--Scimitar parley 19:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balagangadhara

Relisting based upon slightly irregular closure. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete - Returning spam - user added this link for Dr. Balagangadhara to several religion and secular articles - advertises a web site that isn't even built yet. -Tεxτurε 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    List of articles edited to link to this advert:
    14:40, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Religious pluralism (→See also)
    14:36, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Comparative religion
    14:34, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Christianity and world religions (→See also)
    14:26, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularization
    14:18, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→The secular ethic)
    14:17, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism
    14:14, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→See also)
    14:01, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Balagangadhara
    13:59, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Major world religions
    13:57, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) List of religions
  • Delete - I have to go with nonnotable. Maybe an article when there's some sort of notability shown (but even then most of the links that were added are just out of line), but until then keeping it is a bad idea and encourages spam. DreamGuy 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Administrators,
  • It is true that the website is not complete, but nevertheless it does offer a good view of the Research Centre's activities (e.g. programme, research group, forum). Please tell me if the link to the Research Centre is a problem and I will delete it. Please inform me about the reason(s) why (often very discreet) links to the Balagangadhara-wikipage on wikipages/topics that Balagangadhara and the Centre extensively discuss in their research are considered spam.
  • Sincerely,
  • Jeroen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.4 (talk • contribs) , at 20:21, 2005 September 28
    Is this your website or are you associated with this website? - Tεxτurε 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I am just an interested reader. Jeroen
  • Instead of saying whether it is spam or not (that is, one way of filtering articles in journals as well), Balagangadhara is the first scholar who has solved anomalies of existing theories of religion, not within the dominant understanding, but by putting forward a non adhoc hypothesis. As a student of philsophy of sciences, I urge those who wanted to delete as spam the information about this hypothesis , to challenge the hypothesis. Of course, there are many theories of religion whose background knowledge is "religion is cultural universal". Balangangadhara has challenged these background theoritical claims. However, deleting such information on wikipedia does not negate the heuristic power of that hypothesis.
  • Best, Victor Kavinsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.164.68 (talk • contribs) , at 17:42, 2005 October 3
  • Keep - This article is 'different' because it questions some 'universal truths', but does that mean it is spam? It's dense, a lot of information in a concentrated way, difficult to understand from the first time. But it seems to be all true when you think about it. Give it a chance and read it again. TV 81.247.195.58 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – don't see how non-notable he is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting and noteworthy topic. However, the article needs to be cleaned up to offer some more sources and more wikilinks added. - Sensor 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question to answer is always the same: are there independent, reputable sources focused on the subject (ie. Dr. Balagangadhara) that can be used as a basis to write an encyclopedic article on him that abides by the article policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V? We cannot write an encyclopedic article without sources. Some newer guidelines, written with the intention of providing assistance, do the opposite—they have the requirement exactly the wrong way around. The question is not "has this person written a book or two?", it's "has anyone written a book on this person?" Or a newsreport? Or a magazine interview? Or a thesis? If someone has written stuff on him that has gone through the peer-review and fact-checking process that Wikipedia by its very nature cannot undertake on its own, then those works can be used as a basis for a WP article, and referenced at the end. If there are no such sources, the article cannot be written (without contravening WP:NOR and WP:V). Because he is an academic, there probably exist critiques of his work (I can see indications of this on his website); these can be used as sources for one view (his) in an article on Comparative religion, or Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions, or something similar. But I'm unable to see that there are works on him (ie. that catalogue his birth and childhood, family, education, influences, contributions, etc, for example). Delete (without prejudice to suitably sourced material being added to alternative articles such as those mentioned). encephalon 09:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, per Encephalon - While well-argued and very interesting, the article describes a recently-proffered (and hence non-peer-reviewed and non-notable) sociological theory. If Dr. Balagangadhara's book garners attention in scientific circles, its theories will certainly be worth an article. But not as of now. Eaglizard 13:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a very good effort, Jeroen. Thank you. However, I went through each, and they are all works which concern Balagangadhara's specialty—they are not works on him. They are excellent sources for
      1. an article on the book The Heathen in His Blindness... (which, by the way, I urge you to write unless you are yourself Dr. Balagangadhara)
      2. an article on the subject of Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions (which I'd encourage you to contribute to and expand)
    • However, the extreme paucity (I suspect non-existence) of articles or works on Balagangadhara as a person lead me to believe that the article Balagangadhara can only be non-encyclopedic (at least for now). The perfect indication of this of course is simply the current article on that page: it is entirely on the subject he teaches and researches, not on him. For examples of adequate autobiographical articles, see Ludwig Wittgenstein, or Ludwig van Beethoven. Notice how the articles describe the person—birth, early childhood, family, ancestry, life experiences, etc. They can do this because the subjects are well studied, as persons. I suspect it will be impossible to do this with Balagangadhara (for now, at any rate).
    • There are some Wikipedians who'd suggest that we can still create a WP:Stub at Balangangadhara. This is one possibility, but I think it is a poor choice because it does not maximise the available fund of knowledge that we have here. If it were up to me, this is what I'd urge: 1. Create an article at The Heathen in His Blindness.... A very good article can be written here, because of the wealth of commentary on the work. 2. Expand Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions; you could use much of the same material. It will not be sufficient for an exhaustive treatment, but a lot of it can be fleshed out. You can cross-reference the articles. 3. Create a redirect at S.N. Balangangadhara and point it to The Heathen in His Blindness.... 4. Delete the Balagangadhara page. I do not recommend a merge and redirect because this is actually a surname (right?) and I think a redirect with the full name is better. (Having an article with just the surname is in any case a violation of WP:MOS). This scheme maximises the benefit to readers interested in the person and the subject, as all available, verifiable information is placed in context. Regards encephalon 18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. sockpuppet fest. Xoloz 17:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that his work has not been peer reviewed. 17:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - This unsigned user, Bsault, has only edited the article and this AfD. - Tεxτurε 18:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there. No one has suggested that his work has not been peer-reviewed. Clearly, it has. But peer-review of a person's proffesional work only is not a sufficient basis for a biographical account. encephalon 18:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eaglizard said it is not peer reviewed; besides that, he says it is one of sociological theories. Sociological theories give social explanation as to why religon is cultural universal. Balagangadhara did not proffer such theory. His theory merely solves the existing anomalies of all theories of religion, one such anomaly is the theological and secular assumption that religion is a cultural universal. Bsault, 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How about asking about him on the Belgian noticeboard? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The person in dispute is not a non-notable person; he is well known in religious studies, postcolonial, postmodern studies: however, he is not any of them, but he is a philosopher of science. Those who never heard of him can say his theories are not peer-reviewed, or that his theory is some other crackpot theory appearing on internet. If I dont know something, I dont go over to some delete-talk discussion and say delete. One can add biographical information of Balagangadhara, and link to it from the theory (create another link) he put forward. Dave 171.65.195.248 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (unanimous)--Scimitar parley 16:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All boro kings

Nom and vote delete. Nothing notable listed in article for this album. The band name has 4 prior deleted articles in WP but no current article. If the band had an article, could merge this and spare deletion. Daniel Lotspeich 03:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete per nom Jkelly 16:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy -- RHaworth 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Pokorny

Nom&vote delete. vanity, nn (although if Kyle Pokorny is that cool, maybe he is notable). Could probably speedy delete, but don't know how to do that yet...

Entire text reads: Kyle Pokorny refers to just about the coolest guy that you know. He is even cooler that Josh Fink. Daniel Lotspeich 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead easy - just put {{nn-bio}} into the top of the article. -- RHaworth 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations

This is at least the fourth article on the same topic (History of Cuban espionage) that the creator has made this week. Two previous ones have been submitted to AfD's and I'm submitting this one as it is both redundant and given its unwieldy title not suitable for simply making into a redirect. Caerwine 03:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 15:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Journey Into Psychosis

nom&vote delete as appears to be nn and vanity. I found the link to the actual text at http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2313325/1/ the link to the author's bio appears to be dead. Does not appear remotely encyclopedic. Daniel Lotspeich 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer Han Li

Joke; BJAODN maybe?--Shanel 03:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Marskell 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foot-in-the-door technique

Original research, non-verifiable RoySmith 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on changes made, I (the nominator) change my vote to Keep. --RoySmith 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - the sales technique it's talking about is certainly real. It's not the best article it could be, but this is an amateur encyclopaedia after all. If someone wants to take a crack at cleaning them up, sources for usage of the term can easily be found with a Google for 'foot in the door "sales technique" ' or similar. I'll do it myself if no-one's done it by the time I get some free time (probably tomorrow evening). --Last Malthusian 14:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, keep. This is a valid sales technique. The article itself isn't in great shape, but that's what the cleanup tag is for. -- Captain Disdain 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the article. Comments welcome. --Last Malthusian 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article is much improved, but I still have my concerns. My initial reaction was, but this still sounds like Original Research to me, and I'd like to see some references, when I notice the link at the bottom of the page and followed it. I'm not sure how to react to the linked article, however. The first part of it is a very reasonable explanation of the technique, but near the end, it turns into a demonstration of the technique; the article is not really about a sales technique, it's a religious sermon, but the fact that it is indeed a sermon is hidden until the very end, by which time the reader is hooked on reading the article. I'd be much more inclined to vote to keep the wikipedia article if you could find some other external references to cite and ditch the sermon. --RoySmith 13:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one: [2]? It's pretty detailed, and directly addresses the issue in a way that the first reference didn't. Frankly, since it's been verified that the term exists, I agree that more and better references would be 'nice', but don't think they're essential to keep the article on WP. --Last Malthusian 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to say I only just read the article all the way through and saw the bit about Billy Graham. Guess that shows 2 things: a) FITD doesn't always work and b) I should read articles all the way through before referencing them. Good thing it wasn't about the miracle of Goatse :-) --Last "Foot-in-the-mouth" Malthusian 16:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, I do think the original reference is rather cute and should stay in; the fact that it's a demonstration of the technique makes it quite an interesting external link, even if it shouldn't be the sole reference. --Last Malthusian 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should add this new reference, and I still think the sermon citation should be removed, but in any case I agree that with the rewrite it should be kept. It might also make sense to move it to Foot in the door, or at least make that a redirect to here. --RoySmith 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And I've kept the sermon, but changed the text of the link to 'An example of foot in the door technique'. I know it's a bit dodgy, especially as the irony of an article about foot-in-the-doormanship being a 'foot-in-the-door' to talking about Jesus is apparently unintentional (look at the other articles on the website). But Wikipedia isn't a scholarly work, and I think we can have the odd idiosyncratic external link. --Last Malthusian 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable technique; I've seen listed in an advertising manual published 1948. Sadly, my chances of recovering the reference are close to zero. :( Xoloz 17:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep, but for God's sake get rid of the 'sermon' link per RoySmith. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the creator of this article, I will say that my amateurish summary came from paraphrasing of my psychology text. I'm not really sure how exactly I could cite that, can we provide documentation without an external link? Also i came across to the article because it was linked from one of the psych articles, and I thought it was a shame that there was actually nothing there! So I decided to put in a stub just to get the ball rolling, which I guess it did. So can we reference a textbook? Lensovet 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOJO

This article is just taking up space. Wikipedia can't have an article on every radio station. Banana04131 04:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Banana04131 04:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Radio station in Chicago, a large city, and Wikipedia has articles on many of its competitors. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, licensed radio station. Kappa 15:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Disagree with Banana, licensed radio stations are notable. Karmafist 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong precedent for listing radio stations on wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and we already have plenty of radio station articles. 23skidoo 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no-one is saying it, and there's an obvious precedent for including radio stations, Speedy keep. Dottore So 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Speedy keep. And by the way, can anyone explain to me why we can't, theoretically, have an article on every radio station? Right now the precedent includes most, but not all of them, and I'm not saying that that should necessarily be changed, but... we could, if the Wikipedia community agreed to it, indeed have an article on every radio station, right? This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica around here, and thank god. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't object to keeping significant radio stations, I think there the ones that only have W and K call signs, but very small stations should be excluded. One source says there's 12,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S., so I suppose it's possible to include them all. However, the worldwide number is much higher, probably between 50,000 and 150,000. -- Kjkolb 02:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right now, "very small stations" are defined by precedent as being no larger in scope than one city. And I'm not arguing that the precendent should change. Just pointing out the possibilities. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we need to drop all of the ones that begin with C in Canada where many have a large number of listeners in the US? Using only 2 of the beginning letters for call signs is not the way this wiki should work. It is not only about the US. Vegaswikian 05:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was talking about establishing notability for U.S. stations only, not criteria for other countries. I'm kind of stumped trying to figure out how it could have been interpreted otherwise. W and K only have meaning in the U.S. as far as I know, and it would be nonsensical to exclude radio stations from other countries on that basis. Anyway, the point was that, from looking at the FCC website, it looks like very small stations in the U.S. get call signs like NJ9AZ and the commercial/bigger stations in the U.S. get the four letter call signs that begin with W or K.
          • However, that criteria may be too inclusive. 12,000 radio stations is a lot and if the stations in the rest of the world are judged by similar criteria, relevant to the country it's in, it will be a lot of stations. If there's only 50,000 stations in the world that would meet the criteria, it would be 6% of the total pages we currently have in Wikipedia (19% if it's 150,000). -- Kjkolb 09:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe we could create something like WP:MUSIC for radio stations? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds like a good idea. I think the current, informal criteria is whether is notable outside the area, but that doesn't make much sense to me. In mountainous areas, signals don't travel very far and if you can't hear the station, how would it become notable? Even the coastal range here in California (2 to 3 thousand feet where I live) severely limits the range of local stations. I also think that there could be non-commercial stations that are notable, although I think the big ones still get the W and K call signs and that the 12,000 number includes even small commercial stations. (I'm not saying that any station without them is non-notable, though). I'll look into developing criteria. -- Kjkolb 08:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barney Miller speedy keep Grutness...wha? 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am all in favor of articles on significant radio stations, such as some of the American superstations, or radio stations such as CJCA (one of my (blush) articles) which have some important historical heritage. However, most radio stations are like most schools in that they are utterly ordinary and devoid of any individual character. Denni☯ 08:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Licensed radio station. --rob 04:37, 15 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. -R. fiend 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publixlounge

Spam, Promo for nn website Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey Momerath and The Stranglers of The Heart

NN band starting to gain a following. Has appeared in various guises and with different personnel in the last few years. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox Stupid Losses 2005

This page was created by an anon ip. Unless there are third party references, it is inherently POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webermath

Neologism, Original research. cohesion | talk 04:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is outstanding!!!

Although the math doesn't work, I find myself opening up new channels of thought and coming up with new ideas for my students.

John Turner

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPoli10

bandvanity, no google hits

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

The result of the debate was to rename the article to Bennettites. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bennettitis

Page contains no information

*Deletion This page contains no useful information. I would have merged this page with the text on the Bennettitales except that neither of the leading texts on fossil plants (Stewart & Rothwell OR Taylor & Taylor) list this supposed genus. I can find no evidence in the literature on its existence or any information about it. User:EncycloPetey 11 Oct 2005

EncycloPetey 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The reason you couldn't find this genus was because it was misspelled. The correct spelling is Bennettites. I renamed the article and closed the AfD. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please drop me a line. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a joke article which is vandalism per WP:VAND and a speedy per G3. -Splashtalk 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The final theory

hoax

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club Korea

Flooding IRC channels is not notable.

Do not delete. This is a legit entry. (preceding unsigned comment by 72.20.220.123 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

I concur, legit entry, no need to delete.(preceding unsigned comment by 68.180.43.77 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote seems to be by either Jamie himself or one of his fans. The most of the user's contributions are to AfD discussions related to Jamie McGarry. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McGarry

Delete, & redirect to No 4th Wall to Break, non-notable... I hesitate to do this, because I am actually a fan of this artist's work... however, as the article for this artist's comic Built for Comfort was deleted as non-notable, and as this artist's biography is available at Comixpedia, I find this article to be unnecessary. The best option is to delete and redirect to No 4th Wall to Break, I believe

NOMINATOR: (Sorry Jamie!): Tedzsee 06:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Tedzsee. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humph, here we go again! The thing is now, how do you decide whether a person is notable? A search for my name on google reveals that all but three of the first 20 entries are about me. Between the online games, the robot wars stuff, and three webcomics, one could argue that I was at least quite interesting. -- Hijamiefans
Comment. Indeed. Mind you a google search for "Lucas Teodoro da Silva" reveals three pages of hits about no one but me. The first 2 searches on "lucastds" hit sources about me, and a search for "tedzsee" gives 6 pages of google entries about me. The thing is: Rosa Parks is notable. Martin Luther King Jr. is notable. Lucas TdS? Probably no more than you. And I think, until such time as your comic appears in this encyclopedia, the biography probably doesn't warrant a space here either. Now, I was one of those who staunchly defended the notability of said comic, but even so, I was uncomfortable with the idea of the bio appearing here. The precident is that webcartoonists usually don't have bios in this encyclopedia. Even the entry for Nicholas Gurewitch simply redirects to his comic (ie. he doesn't warrant a seperate entry because it is his COMIC that is notable, not him). I dunno. That's why I thought a redirect would be more appropriate. You can always post the bio on your userpage, as most wikipedians do. --Tedzsee 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move request to WP:RFD --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azad_(rapper

useless redirect Sigorni 07:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default to keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad

Not trying to get you to change your vote, but you do realize this was listed because it is non-notable, not because of any POV issues, right? csloat 22:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the concern is not PoV, the concern is notability and finding dozens of entries on a search site does not mean it is notable. a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because Amazon carries it does not make it notable, and in fact, the Amazon sales rank is a rather dismal 149,187. However, it has been reviewed by a rather amazing 34 readers, which indicates it arouses considerable passion in those who do read it. Denni☯ 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep and congratulations borisblue on your 1000 edits that is really great Yuckfoo 00:00, 15 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. -R. fiend 17:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendocore

Neologism, of the (random word)-core variety. No evidence of use that I could find; 209 unique hits (including usernames and non-English stuff) on Google, and the Wikipedia article comes up as the second hit. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global Mixed Movement

Not notable. No groups, No news. Delete. Happy to be shown evidence I'm right. brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. -Doc (?) 23:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gundumani

Irrelevant article 203.99.42.15 08:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outlast

Non-notable group, with no external references. -- Peruvianllama 09:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their music is a conglomerate of many styles, mainly techno and avant-garde. The members of Outlast refer to their output as "Corporation".(preceding unsigned comment by 203.221.81.172 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

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

The result of the debate was Delete (7d, 1k)--Scimitar parley 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy linn

Non-notable bio. User:JYolkowski thinks he is notable so I am bringing it here. -- RHaworth 10:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Halo

Non notable unfinished book for which I couldn't think of a proper speedy CambridgeBayWeather 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Gurps Halo Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Halo Gurps

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Fork Camp

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep the information this article could provide is too much to be merged into any one article. 700,000 people have been to Philmont so while this camp may not be 'notable' or famous, the information the article could provide is valuable and worth retaining.--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Creek Camp

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Jones

Doesn't sound terribly notable. Only claim to fame is presidency of a local university student association. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SWF 'n Slide Pro

Subject is too unimportant to get a wikipedia article, plus article looks like advertising. Delete. Peter S. 12:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeble

I don't believe the animal exists. Unless someone can prove its existence, I nominate for deletion. Geopgeop 12:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a WP:CSD A7 - person with no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNKNOWN

MMORPG characters are inherently non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. you can delete this on the fact that the character is not notable, but you will not be able to delete the Stargate Wars article; for subjects that are not people do not have to be notable according to the rules! ZPMMaker 11:53, 16 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 --Allen3 talk 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidn

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru vs Shadow the Hedgehog

Non-encyclopedic. Useless "battle" between two unrelated characters. RattleMan 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Gaica

I think this article is a kind of self promotion or some joke. I´m really into bodyboarding since the 80´s and I´ve never heard about this lad. Also, he seems to be only 15 now. Nothing makes him worth of a page in Wikipedia, since he has NO encyclopaedic value. I think this article should be forever removed. By the way he spoke utter lies. He claimed to have invented the 720 air reverse, when José Otávio from Brazil had it caught on tape a lot before this Gaica claims. Also Jeff Hubbard have done it before. This guy also seems to be vandalizing the Boadyboarding page to promote himself. A search in google returns nothing for him either. Loudenvier 13:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Isayev

Page doesn't assert significance of this person. Was linked at Belarus national football team as current manager, but this info is wrong. Monkbel 14:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raised from an Egg

This actually sounds like a fun project, but alas, a couple of guys having fun sitting on a mountaintop doth not an encyclopedia topic make. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC - no album releases, no allmusic.com entry, no web presence, just a local band like many, many others -- Ferkelparade π 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This band seem to me like a lot more than just 'another local band'. If read into the article you can see without the source being bigheaded he has managed to describe a rather pioneering group. I have seen them play at the Make poverty history gig. Thier achivemnt was impressive alongh with others and made it into their my local paper (I have the article but not permission to print it yet). Please, patience is a virtue and websites do take time to build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.125.144 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article details an upcoming band who may not yet be known to everyone, but as stated in the article, this band is in fact a musical "movement", and although they have not yet released any albums (which you seem to believe is the only thing that quantifies a "band"), one is in fact in production (as stated in the article), on a small record label. Disregarding music because it does not fulfil your 'criteria' would be a shameful attempt to classify art. For example, the Arctic Monkeys last weekend played a sold-out gig to 2,000 people at the Hammersmith Apollo, although they, too haven't released an album. How many bands do you know that:
a) Didn't start "local".
b) Are as radical as this band? This is not just another 'local band', this is a very unique way of expressing music, one which has not been seen in quite sometime. I personally, am a follower of this band (I began the article) and am very intruiged by their musical style and persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notch (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 October 2005
  • Keep. I don't know anything about this band but their entry is a hell of a lot more amusing and well designed than most of the 'proper' band entries on this site. Have we really become a bunch of boring busy-bodies with too much time our hands? Let it stay, and if they don't come up with some stuff in the next few months we can reconsider. It has always been my opinion that Wikipedia needs to lighten up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker (talk • contribs) 2:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment. More importantly, the criteria apply to generic music bands. This isn't really a band (as the article states under 'opposition'), thus the criteria for a band are invalid. This is a new innovative way of looking at music, not an "album, album, gig, gig, single, EP, album, gig" band.They are unique and therefore the article should stay. Notch 16:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are a goon.(to all those who support delete) Stop harrassing this group of angelic individuals. I bet you spend all your time on wikipedia looking for articles to delete. I bet your real name is Gavin and your only friends are the cats you adopt when they happen to wander into your sqaulid bedsit, attracted by the stench of pot noodles. I bet the last girl you talked too was your mum who came around to drop of the clothes you got her to wash. I bet you can recite the entire script of neon genesis evangelon. I bet you're just jealous you didn't think of playing he guitar when you were young and free and still had hope that each new day would bring more than searching obsessively through the endless archives of wikipedia, folornley searching for something on which to exert what little power you have in life upon. I hope you get socks for Christmas. Good day to you sirs!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 October 2005
  • Comment Yeh and I bet you all play dungeons and dragons, and whenever you meet your friends you compare/boast about how BIG your memory is on your computer, and you always have stories about how last night you were kicking this orcs ass when suddenly you rolled a 2 and you were decapitated, and you fantasise about hot elf chicks with their HUGE SWORDS, tight, revealing, impracticle leather clothing and over sized breasts, but deep down you know that you won't ever get a girlfriend at all. And its really sad that you actually know the rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 October 17 2005

Thanks For the "good luck", not the delete.

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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. Gamaliel 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interitus Dei

vanity and not notable. Gator1 14:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Robert 01:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neocron republic

nn gamecruft, few google hits for both "Neocron republic", "Neocronians" and "Galactic Ascension". Punkmorten 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khoi vo

Unverifiable. This user has contributed nonsense bordering on vandalism recently, and I doubt his credibility as well as that of the article. Google gets two hits for "Khoi Vo"+"Vietnam War", one of which gives this little factoid: "Tuan Anh Ho, leader of the Committee of Just Cause for Free Vietnam, was taken by an employee of his sign shop to Garden Grove Hospital, where he was treated and released. Ho was kicked in the stomach and groin about 9:20 a.m. as he stood outside his shop on Moran Street and snapped photos of protesters and their signs, said Westminster police Sgt. Darrick Vincent. Tho Ngoc Pham, 41, and Khoi Vo, 70, both of Westminster, were arrested on suspicion of assault and battery, Vincent said." Delete. Scimitar parley 15:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. How refreshing to see sensible sock puppets. -- RHaworth 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesches, Seine-et-Marne

  • well i know that this article is just nonsense b/c i know the people who wrote it. It has to be deleted b/c wikipedia is a very very good encyclopedia, where stupid articles like this shouldnt be placed
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Robert 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music 1971

This seems to be a spam claim for past royalties due Spenny 15:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Stargate Wars

Non-notable fan-made (unauthorized/unlicensed) online game. It's one of many more-or-less interchangable "Build an army by paying us money or recruiting other players" online games, and doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any sort of news coverage or other impact. Google backs this up, with 133 unique links, many of which are people spamming to try to recruit other players. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unauthorized but, I my self have been getting help on improving it and a number of new players said that they saw the page and they liked it because it was actually more helpful than the actual site. If it is deleted now, before it can even get a chance to gain some traffic, some will be mad, and others will be disappointed until someone trys to make it again. Please just give the page a little bit longer.

What exactly defines a game as non-notable? Whether authorized or not, the game has attracted almost 40 thousand users since it was put online 8 months ago, more than 16 thousand of which are still active in the game and/or the forums. The administrator of the game has constantly made updates to the game to please users, as well as improve gameplay. The administrator is currently developing the 4th version of the game, giving all users a gaming experience that they can look forward to on a daily basis. To call the game non-notable is arrogant and pompous, and the current article does a great job of defining the game's brief but storied history, as well as giving new users an idea of what they need to do to excel in the game.


Cheaters who create double accounts are found and baned by Admin and Mods of StargateWars, many cheat fixes are implimented to prevent multi accounting. 40k players NOT 40k usernames. More players are joining every day and unactive accounts are deleted. Stargatewars is most popular Stargate game on all the web.

First of all, the game does give limited referral bonuses, but as it seems you haven't done more than give it a cursory glance you don't seem to realise that these bonuses are essentially useless for anyone trying to do even marginally well at the game. Link clicks from the referral links are limited to 50 per day, which in the grand scheme of things would count for about 1% of the growth a player can realise in a day through actual gameplay (i.e. nobody bothers with the link clicks anymore). Furthermore while there are bonuses for supporting the game people can play (and be quite successful at it) without paying a cent. In fact some top players have received supporter bonuses FOR FREE from the admin for their excellent gameplay. A few players known for their excessive donations have been singled out and targeted as the practice of donating to achieve rank is strongly frowned on. The game appears to be initially based on Kings of Chaos (which has it's own wiki) and expanded the concept to create a far richer more engrossing gaming experience. So it's non-notable why? Because there are no media articles on it? Much that is noteworthy fails to appear in the media and even more that is not noteworthy appears in the media with all too much frequency. Perhaps to you it's not, but to the stargate fans out there this game is noteworthy and considering that it is the longest running sci fi show in US history and second only to Doctor Who all time globally, I think that it's a testament to how Stargate has entered into various different facets of culture outside of television.--Freeside 07:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a blatant clone of another game, not very popular as free online games goes, has gotten absolutely no press coverage despite an entire industry devoted to covering games, hasn't even been around very long, and isn't even terribly significant in the context of the Stargate fandom. (I'm not disagreeing that Stargate is notable; but, then again, we're not talking about deleting the Stargate SG-1 article.) When this game is as popular and influential as Kings of Chaos, it will merit its own article, but until then it doesn't. Sorry. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm pretty sure that an article designed partially as a walkthough and partialy as a recruiting advertisment has no place in an encyclopaedia. Delete Saberwyn 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)". Two things: 1: This article does not contain any recruitment links AT ALL! Have you even bloody read the article?!

2: Has anyone actually read 'What wikipedia is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)? I quote: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports" - thus, why does an article need to be about media? I quote again, from the same source: "Subjects [people] of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." However: no where in that OFFICIAL article by the wikipedia admin does it say that non-human subjects need to be 'notable'. So there! Keep or put yourself at the mercy of all Stargate nerds And I am just about to add an external link to my own walkthrough guide; this article will act as a brief summary of the game, but not a walkthrough (whoever suggested it was). ZPMMaker 08:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you threating Wikipedia in your vote? How absolutely silly.
    As for claims of notability, as a matter of practice all things need to assert notability, unless (and this a very controversial exception) that thing is an inherently notable thing (and online web-based games aren't even close). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not a threat (what made you think it was?). Also, it does not say that it needs to be notable. If you know where it says it must, please point it out to us.ZPMMaker 11:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can gather there are two main points supporting deletion. First that the game is unlicensed, hence not fully legal, and second that the game's popularity is deemed too limited to warrant inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now the first point is actually irrelevant. Something being authorized/sanctioned is not a pre requisite for relevance. I think you would agree after a moment of thought that unsanctioned/unauthorized work can often be equally or more relevant. So saying "Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon" is essentially moot. As for the second point, if using Kings of Chaos (KoC) as a metric, a comparison between the two shows that KoC has about 10 000 users online at this moment compared to about 500 for Stargate Wars (SGW). Now this indicates that SGW has about 5% of the usage that KoC has. This is notable. KoC has been around for almost 5 years whereas SGW has been around for a matter of months. In any other arena, say for example web browsers, Firefox developping a user base that was about 5-10% the size of IE was certainly considered notable. --Freeside 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon is subject to "foxing". Don't laugh-- MGM has already gone after others for similar. SGW is also charging money for support, which could be construed as the use of MGM's copyrighted material in order to turn a profit. You know, something which MGM's legal department wouldn't take too kindly to. A cease-and-desist means that the game would likely no longer exist, making the need for an article on a short-lived web-game "essentially moot." Hence, my objection.
Back to the current article, though: Your argument seems to basically be 'there isn't a huge userbase yet... but there might be someday! And then we'll be glad we had this article!' By that math, I could write up a web-game and have it online for five minutes... sure, it might have one user now, but if it lasts for five years like KoC, then there'll be 525 600 users! (I'd better get started with that article.)
As far as the Firefox analogy goes, it's apples-to-oranges. In the web-browser arena, IE has something like 90% marketshare; thus 5-10% is notable, as that makes it the second most popular browser. Stargate Wars is one in how many different web-games (each with how much share of the market)? slab 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how notable it is?! Like I said before, no where in the official wikipedia rules site does it say a subject need be notable!!! ZPMMaker 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What exactly defines an encyclopaedia? According to Encyclopedia, it is a 'Compendium of knowledge'; this article provides knowledge about a game, and thus, is encyclopaedic. It also need not be notable, as I have said before (see my second post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Archangels_Of_Destruction)... Pete.Hurd, I believe your claims are invalid (not to mention the claims of everyone who claimed it was not-notable)...ZPMMaker 08:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grint : A new word in the English language

per the title, a neologism of no encyclopedic merit. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 15:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2309

Not only is this a one-line stub about one minor fact about a fictional character, it's an incorrect one-line-stub about one minor fact about a fictional character, as Jean-Luc Picard says that he was born in 2305. There's no useful information to merge and the redirect would be totally worthless. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fullpro

Advertisement. Delete. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich guide

Non-notable website, Wikipedia is not a webguide. A single page links to this site according to google, and that happens to be this wikipedia article. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy DELETE. nn-bio -Doc (?) 23:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RubyMowz

Non-notable forum member. Only 7 unique Google hits, one of which is a Wikipedia category. [5] Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multivendor Integration Architecture

Very un-encyclopedic, little information. This either needs to be deleted or have a major overhaul by someone with more knowledge on the subject. Pureblade | ☎ 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it exists doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedia article. - Pureblade | ☼ 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Doc Glasgow. -Splashtalk 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Le

nn-bio with poor but debatable assertions of notability. I can't tell if this is for a gang member or an online gamer. Also see Marc Ecko (an alias) as part of this AfD; delete both — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Beck

vanity and not notable Gator1 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parivision Entertainment

Nom & vote delete. Non-notable low-budget film company PooterCobb 17:26, 13 October 2005 (UT

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robert Powers}]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iwerne Holidays

not notable or encyclopedic, may just need to properly expand Gator1 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This text was placed on the article page itself soI moved it here:Gator1 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have something to do with camps for christian school children I believe, as per original author, although I have no knowledge myself of what these are. 200.56.195.159

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaupelan

This is a non-notable Mironation.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (3d, 2k). Since all the delete votes cited it as a hoax, the confirmation by the original nominator should put to rest any controversy about keeping this article. --Scimitar parley 19:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buiteraptor

I gave this several hours and there is still nothing in the news nor any hits in Google. Suspect hoax CambridgeBayWeather 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's real, see one hit from Google only but there is about 258 hits on Google for Buitreraptor (with an extra R). This is the best. CambridgeBayWeather 08:35, 14 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 (unanimous)--Scimitar parley 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARM ChaOS

This is an inactive project, which hasn't released anything since it was founded in 2004. It has pages in SourceForge. The mailing list is empty, the forum is empty, no news, nothing. -Hapsiainen 18:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  03:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijihad

Neologism. consider BJAODN or delete. User:Daniel Lotspeich 18:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Know

nom&vote delete nn. PooterCobb 18:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinger Library Co-Operative

Non-notable group with 5 unique Google hits. Delete--Isotope23 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me as a nn-bio.--Scimitar parley 19:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark lukeman

vanity RoySmith 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out

wiki is not a dictionary

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 having no possible claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party at ryans

Unencyclopedic vanity. CDC (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_13&oldid=25451829"