Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 17

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahagaja (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 17 October 2005 (Wired (comic)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 16 >

Purge server cache

October 17

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. — JIP | Talk 08:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric emergency services

NOTE User:V. Molotov, who added this AfD, then removed it 2 days later. You can't unilaterally remove an AfD, it has to run it's course. --Rogerd 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not more notable than several other hundreds of similar clinics. If we keep this article - get busy - and start writing articles for all psychiatric clinics in the U.S. ( I personally disagree with High School articles for the same reason).File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Note, if this is kept - it needs a thorough clean up. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It's not one clinic it is a system which is the basis for the delivery of mental health thoughout the United States. This system is also modeled in other counties who look to the United states as a leader in medicine. Can clean it up as needed

Keep This is not about a specific medical center, but about a type of medical center, which there are a large number of. [1]. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- though are there other names for this sort of thing? (I'm thinking there must be.) If so, they should be included, and redirects made. --Jacquelyn Marie 00:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. It's verifiable.

Torchwood

Hoax. Supposedly a spin-off of the new Doctor Who series, but it's highly unlikely that the biggest Doctor Who news site has nothing to say about it.--Sean Black Talk 00:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the banner on the producing network's website. And this article in the Independent. Radagast 01:15, 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 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 speedy deleted as copyvio by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The showdown

Personal essay on a NN band. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:37, 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 superseded by new developments. The revisions that constituted the original article have been deleted due to copyright infringement. A new, rewritten version has been created to avoid this problem. If someone still wishes to propose deletion, the discussion should be restarted separately. --Michael Snow 23:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert M. Wolters

Previous vfd

This article was listed for deletion before. It was deleted. I summarily undeleted on WP:IAR. Why are we deleting articles about published authors who are full professors and experts on Nova? After a bit of a kerfuffle it was undeleted and VfD'd by spinboy, and I'm completing the nomination here. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)#[reply]

  • Keep. Expert on the Copper Scroll, published (non vanity) author,for which we have a notability precedent. This ancient old guy you might have seen on Nova and want to read about (you know? like in en encyclopedia?) --Tony SidawayTalk 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you elaborate? I notice that the previous thingie was set off by your accusation "Non-notable boring professor". Does boringness disqualify article subjects? (If so, then boringness to me would knock out everything about Star Wars, just for starters, though I accept that this is limitlessly fascinating for many.) Or is boringness only damning when coupled with non-notability as a professor? What would make a professor notable, anyway? (Luxuriant flowing hair, perhaps?) Pray enlighten us! -- Hoary 02:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • previous vfd was unanimous consensus to delete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-evident Keep Snowspinner 01:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very fine Encephalon. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave that argument a read, and I think its very interesting. I was almost convinced. But I thought about what it takes to get an article written about oneself. Media outlets are likely to write articles about authors who are interesting to the general public, not academics. So, people who are quacks, but loud about it are more likely to have articles writen about them than people who are importantly contributing to true scientifc advancement. On the other hand, regular living contributors to science don't often have articles written about them, just about their work. I like the ease of application of Encephalon's critera, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be happy with the outcome. Anywho, just my two cents. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read Encephalon's argument as well. Not sure I completely agree much for the same reason as Kzollman above. In this instance, I vote delete, for lack of the notability of the professors work and for the professor. Nothing personal, I'm sure that he's a nice guy and his students and family adore him, but I fail to see the notability. BTW thanks to Encephalon for putting the Wikipedian Physician category on my user page.—Gaff talk 07:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable religious expert with four published books to his credit.Capitalistroadster 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable academic. Guettarda 02:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable academic. That is if it survives VfU, as always.Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • VFU is broken. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Sidaway, would I be right, in the spirit of WP:IAR, to vandalize your user page because I think you are disruptive, and wished to show you how painful disruption can be? Anarchy is a vicious cycle. If we really ignored all rules, this project would fail. I haven't been here that long, but when I first arrived, I found you to be a good admin of sound judgment, and I liked you. Your recent attacks have been depressing. Make your points (which are often good ones) with logic, not with with disrespect for others. I do hope WP does not become a land of George W. Bush-esque unilateralism. I am sad. Xoloz 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep good articles about marginal subjects. — brighterorange (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOVA's a good program, if they say he's good I won't question them. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this content was already deleted, without challenge. If a new article, which shows something new (like listing writing about him, not just by him) than a different AFD result might be reasonable. Frankly, I don't like the citing of WP:IAR here. WP:IAR is about freeing individual wikipedians from mindless application of rules, not letting admins use their extra powers to do things, nobody else can do. --rob 04:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted without challenge suggests that the system does not work - keeping it deleted for that reason, rather than on the basis of merit of the article, seems to be overly bureaucratic. Guettarda 06:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the minimal discussion that preceded the first deletion tells me this wasn't given due consideration. Seems to be a mildly notable academic expert. --Michael Snow 04:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though it's close. The article is informative and well written. The problem is that it doesn't establish notability. Though some would disagree, I believe that a typical college professor is not notable enough to justify inclusion here. Are Mr. Wolter's publications of ongoing scholarly relevance? That is, have they been used as references in other works? Are they of general interest (Nearly all college professors publish books, but many are only purchased by their students and colleagues)? If Mr. Wolter is indeed a notable individual, the reason for his notability should be called out in the opening sentence. The present opening sentence states that he is a college professor. Tony Sidaway opines above that Wolter is an expert on the Copper Scroll. If so, the article should say that; it does not at present. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass the "average professor test" easily. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, by definition, almost all academics are specialists about something; it's in the job description. This fellow's publication record and teaching history do not make him stand out above the vast number of other professors who are toiling away at their specialties. If community consensus decides that we need to have bios of every professor who has published books in their chosen field of specialty, sobeit, but I am unaware of such a consensus. Second, looking at his publication record, I am at a loss to understand the appeal to his supposed authority. Wedge, Eerdmans, Paternoster Press? These are not academic publishers of any repute; they are specialty (one might venture fringe) theological publishers with significant ideo-theological bias. His one academic publisher, Sheffield Academic Press, barely makes it above the bar. A google search for a review of his works returns no peer review of any significance that I can find. But more importantly, Tony Sidaway's decision to ignore unanimous - unaninmous - consensus last time and cite WP:IAR as a justification looks a lot to me like a blatant and outrageous arrogation of authority. It is frankly arrogant summarily to undelete this and then do nothing more, by way of explanation, than declaim "hey this guy was on TV! he has to be notable! You got it wrong." What's the point of the entire AfD process if one admin can arbitrarily decide to reverse consensus - unanimous consensus no less - and then hide behind a ruleset based on a clear misinterpretation of the subject's authority. Not only should this be removed (again), I think that the admin has provided grounds for censure and should be stripped of any power to meddle in the AfD process. Dottore So 07:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignore all rules is certainly something that requires extreme arrogance, and can sometimes lead to censure. I've no problem with that. I think I did the right thing because this way we end up with a worthwhile article that would certainly have remained deleted (see arrogance). I also don't like the idea of using the word "consensus" to describe the five or six editors who typed "delete" without adequate explanation in the previous AfD. They obviously just voted "delete because I hadn't heard of the guy and I find professors boring". --Tony SidawayTalk 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's important to note, that ignoring the rules wasn't needed to make a *new* substantially different article for the same professor; better explaining his signficance. If he's as important as you say, and there's ample sources to verify this, than it should be straightforward to write an original article on him (based on verifiable external sources, and not on old content). So, the question isn't whether the professor was worth ignoring the rules, but whether the time saved by re-using previously rejected content was worth it. Essentially, I am saying, on this matter, you should have stayed within the same limits, that a non-admin would have to stay within. --rob 10:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying you're wrong here, but the argument that the article could be rewritten strikes me as somewhat ad hoc. As we can see, the article is believed by a substantial majority of those who have looked at it in this new vote to be a perfectly acceptable one. It follows that it doesn't even come close to being a candidate for deletion. Dottore So's suggestion below that thos e who voted delete in the previous debate may have done so because Józef Tadeusz Milik doesn't have an article also strikes me as blatantly ad hoc. The problem here is not so much that AfD occasionally deletes articles that are obvious keeps, but that VFU flatly refuses to do anything about the matter. Hence my intervention. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • One reason we see things differently, is I'm not admin. This seems to be the flip side of another admin deleting an article despite the AFD result, and also doing "speedy deletes" outside of WP:CSD. It seems fundamentally unfair for just some wikipedians (e.g. admins) to be able to do this stuff, while the rest of us, sit on the sidelines and watch as admins fight it out. Wikipedia will be radically altered if admins regularly overuse their special powers to have superior control over what content wikipedia will and won't have. --rob 11:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe they voted delete because other more central figures to the Copper Scroll like Józef Tadeusz Milik, who did the original translation, btw, have no WP listing and they figured this inclusion was arbitrary and below the threshhold. Also, as it stands, it looks very much to me like a straight c/p and hence copyvio from his [webpage]. Dottore So 10:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong, obvious Keep, though needing clean-up. Logophile 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published author, guest on a popular TV show, significant biographical information available... seems notable enough to keep. While it's true that every academic is a specialist in some field, because of his particular field and his appearance on TV, he may be of interest to a significant number of non-specialists. --Clay Collier 08:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The excessively brief and superficial discussion on the previous nomination was nothing short of scandalous, and the insistence upon preserving the deletion because of the "process" is ludicrous. We are here to build an encyclopædia, not to construct more and more arcane methods of filtering out any content not already known to a minority of people who haunt the Deletion pages. I too read the contention by Encephalon that an author of a notable book does not himself become notable until someone else writes a book about them: what kind of twisty-little-passage logic is that? —Phil | Talk 08:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't decide whether he's notable or not. Depends on whether a TV appearance makes you more than an 'average professor'. However I'd just like to opine that the fact that this discussion is so much more lively than the previous one justifies the use of WP:IAR, though perhaps, at worst, it might have been "right decision, wrong reason". --Last Malthusian 08:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable author: his Creation Regained has been translated into several other languages including Dutch, Afrikaans, Korean, Japanese and Russian. The book is a key document in what has become the reformational movement. He is also an expert on the Copper Scroll SteveBish 09:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Ryan Delaney talk 09:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If such an article is considered deletable, it's time for us all to pack up and go home now - David Gerard 09:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, previous deletion was based on the idea it was a vanity article. Current version clearly establishes this person is a notable scholar in the field of the Dead Sea scrolls'. So the earlier votes no longer apply. The earlier deletion was entirely in process, but mistakes should be corrected. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable scholar and author. Creation regained got several editions and translations, cited in scholarly works. --Pjacobi 10:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I voted delete on the last AfD because I don't think the average college professor is notable and this one is perhaps only slightly above average. You can make your argument to keep the article without insulting the users who disagree. -- Kjkolb 11:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the whole "average professor" - no, most professors do not have book(s) published; most focus on teaching and are employed by community colleges or small liberal arts schools. The "average" professor at a research university is by no means "average" - s/he has had to publish entensively to get tenured. As for appearing on NOVA - not a lot of university professors ever appear on national television, let alone something like NOVA. So, as long as the criterion for notability is someone who is more notable than the "average professor" (using the US definition of the term professor), this guy appears to clear that hurdle with ease. Guettarda 14:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good article. Xoloz 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This should be obvious. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Insufficient debate in last AfD, not paper, yadda yadda. Plural publications are sufficient notability. Haeleth 14:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to respect the result of the previous AfD. Indeed the current page is speediable as a recreation of validly deleted content, and was only undeleted to allow discussion on WP:VFU. DES (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check your facts. Splash restored and then deleted Albert M. Wolters at 18:46. I undeleted it under WP:IAR at 18:52. Zoe deleted it again with a personal attack in the deletion summary at 00:14. Snowspinner undeleted it at 00:33. Fvw deleted it again at 00:55. Finally Snowspinner undeleted it at 01:05. By this time someone had been a afd tag on it and so I had completed the nomination. So the article has been undeleted and is undergoing a second AfD, which it will almost certainly pass. Good. Errors are made, and when that happens no weight of bureaucracy should be permitted to stop us correcting them. This is an encyclopedia, not a social club. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it seems odd for me to restore and delete inside a minute: I did it to drop the content in User:SteveBish/Sandbox per that user's request. I had hoped that this action might be a compromise between what I supposed would be Tony's reflex undeletion and keeping it completely invisible. Clearly I must temper my optimism or be more creative. -Splashtalk 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Walter Siegmund 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle. android79 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Trollderella 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clear and convincing evidence that AfD AND VFU occasionally make mistakes. Ignore all rules has been successfully applied to improve the encyclopedia. Wikilawyers who value process over the end product should try not to take this personally, and then if they're still upset over this, reconsider whether they're actually helping create an encyclopedia or not. Unfocused 16:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please explain in what way this proves that VfU makes mistakes? VfU wasn't given a chance to work because it was short-circuited, and the discussion there currently favors the same result as the discussion here. It's impossible to tell for sure now, but it seems that it wasn't actually necessary to ignore the rules in this case. --Michael Snow 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sidaway. Jesse 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page; non-encyclopedic, non-verifiable. Fuller explaination on its Talk page -- Corvus 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep; independent information on Mr. Wolters does seem difficult to come by, so the argument that he might fail a WP:V test is tempting. The article does contain its share of nonverifiable vanity-style fluff at this point as well. But, my opinion, it's still a keeper. I'll add my two cents on Tony's move: it fell well within proper behavior. These AFDs with no real discussion are always suspect: it's supposed to be a consensus-gathering discussion, not an up-or-down vote. When there's no discussion, it's a good thing to have an admin go look at the page in question and see if the article should be re-Afd'd. Although if I were he, I would have abstained from voting after doing so. No big deal though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that it's more than just fluff/vanity taken from the prof. The critical text in the article "...also done work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particular the Copper Scroll, which is a list of buried treasure (probably taken from the temple in Jerusalem in New Testament times)." was lifted from the prof's freewebs page, wasn't put in quotation marks, and wasn't attributed to the professor. The tone of this AFD seems to be that the first-round AFD'ers didn't bother doing their research. In fact, the article's author didn't do their research, and the undeleter didn't do it. If this prof is worthy, then go and do the research, find the independent reliable sources, and make a genuine substantially different article. --rob 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fine article. This is such an obvious keep as to baffle. Agree entirely with Tony's rationale and with Un's comments. Censure Dottore So for personal attacks.--Nicodemus75 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basta. How is what I said a personal attack? I am critical of the admin's behaviour which, although I am in the minority here, I think can legitimately be interpreted as pushing the envelope when it comes to a consensus-driven, comunity based site. Dottore So 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. Your criticisms didn't come close to being a personal attack, and if someone breaks the rules as I have done it would be a bit odd if nobody came out and made some pretty trenchant criticism. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COPYVIO. The text, with only minor changes, is lifted from the professor's personal website. Thanks to rob for identifying the source. Dragons flight 19:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whatever the result of this AfD, Wikipedia, and especially the contributors here, can be very proud of the intelligent and open way the whole thorny matter has been handled on this page. Intellectual engagement, courtesy and understanding have been the order of the day. AndyJones 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have a problem reopening the AfD, but I resent the personal attacks on those who voted delete in the original nomination. -- Kjkolb 20:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:39, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – --Celestianpower háblame 20:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BEAST!

Neologism. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zumm zumm

NN band. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 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 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. Stormie 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous combustion petro chemicals

I'm not quite sure this topic merits its own article. Perhaps should be merged into somewhere else? 202.156.6.59 00:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK maybe merge with autoignition temperature to help fill out that brief article. the subject of the article is real. Just the original writing was poorly done. Vsmith 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hypergolic (and rename that article as appropriate). --Carnildo 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't know a lot about the subject but I don't believe it needs its own article. Also, the title isn't written correctly (It's Spontaneous combustion of petro chemicals I would think.) -Haon 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content (and there isn't much) with Spontaneous combustion. Denni☯ 01:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very, very little useable content to merge into spontaneous combustion. I have a degree in biochemistry and have taken courses in advanced physical chemistry. This article is subpar. Articles like this are why Wikipedia is criticized for its lack of experts writing articles. The material could be covered in the article on spontaneous combustion or the article on hypergolic rocket fuels. (both of those articles are not very well written either). The article title "Spontaneous combustion petro chemicals" by the way makes no sense.—Gaff ταλκ 02:28, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as blatant copyvio. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ansem Reports

Normally I don't concern myself with the minutiae of games, in this case, it appears that including the reports here in this article is a copyright violation. I wanted validation of my opinion, which is why I brought this here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:59, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna album covers and chart statistics

Redundant with Madonna discography. Essentially a reprise of the album section with pictures added. FuriousFreddy 01:00, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SandEater

nn character on a video game Cruft Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:03, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Solutions

I understand that this is a non-profit organization working for the public good, but is this not also covered under the no advertising policy, especially the banner ad? Runnerupnj 03:48, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steph-ball

Silly neologism, no source. Delete. Freshgavin 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variation is the basis for evolution; wikipedia is about open-source information free to all - even if it is not in accordance with the letter of wikipedia law it is in tune with the spirit of wikipedia; do not delete this article (preceding comment by user:194.82.51.28)</small)

you miss the point. Kozakti-ball doesn't belong in here, because it was just a made-up game played by a couple a dozen friends over the course of a few years. Steph-ball is a similar made up game that has no place in wikipedia. it's probable that thousands of different similar games with variations have existed briefly then stopped. If Steph-ball was the common name of all these variations worldwide, it would be encyclopaedic. It isn't. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slip A Buck

  • Delete. You guys can go ahead and delete this. I am the proprieter of Slip A Buck. Been working hard these last few weeks trying to get the site off the ground. Talking to artists, getting business stuff squared away, etc.. Looks like somebody got excited and added us before the front page has even been finished. =P Sorry for the trouble. Amazing how you guys found and prepared to delete the entry before I even knew it existed (found the link in my Stats page). Anyway, keep up the great work, and I can't wait til we're notable enough to earn a legitimate entry. =)

Not only is this site non notable, it hasn't opened for business yet. JJay 01:58, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnyard records

This non-notable record label claims they have two local bands signed. A handfull of google hits and no website (I guess that's why they need the wiki) doesn't equal the big time JJay 02:25, 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 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 Merge and redirect to Lycopodium. --GraemeL (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lycopods

This article is redundant to the article on the genus Lycopodium. I have merged the information from Lycopods into Lycopodium. I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is, but perhaps a redirect should be left in place to get people from lycopod(s) to the Lycopodium article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep. Thank you for doing merging; this is a thankless task that we are way behind on. After merging, we almost always keep the redirect, since we need to keep around the history, and because the existence of duplicate articles strongly suggests the usefulness of such a redirect. So, this should certainly be kept. (Also, as a matter of process, we handle the deleting of redirects at RfD rather than AfD). — brighterorange (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying the process. I was never very familiar with the deletion process, but it seems like ever since this AfD overhaul, the amount of text describing the process has increased dramatically. I gues this is what I was looking for. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:31, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox sector

This little message board can hardly be called notable. 70.119.8.76 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The website is not trivial... as many people find it each day as a better alternative to some bad messageboards out there. -Dvigour 05:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly its worth is quite obvious it is a younger site in the growing stages. It has alread proved itself noteworthy in it's ability to help the user with technical issues as well as personal.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWWOW

"World Wide Wrestling Organization of the World" gets zero Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 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 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud gavron

non notable - Vanity Rjayres 03:06, 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 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Resistance

Non-notable robotics club. (BTW, not to disparage your accomplishments, since I have volunteered to judge FIRST before and recognize how much work goes into entering these challenges! It just isn't an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, that's all.) — brighterorange (talk) 03:02, 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 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 Speedy deleted as nonsense by Eloquence. --GraemeL (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GWiki

Confused article (and category) about a made up term. I've found no evidence that the word "GWiki" meaning "wikis with GPL license" is in use beyond this article. Angela. 03:36, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Propaganda. -Splashtalk 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional vagueness

Vote that material be merged into Propaganda article (where it is already covered in substantial detail, and page be made a redirect to Propaganda —Gaff talk 04:12, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rise of Tyrants

Nonnotable and apparently brand-spanking new online RPG. Delete the POV advert language and you really don't have any article left beyond a link. Postdlf 03:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. If you allow Kings of Chaos and Dark Throne to have similar articles, leave this one here. Keep (flurffmeister)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 06:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know the mentioned articles, but this one is non-notable advertising. Geogre 14:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, not yet encyclopedic and may never be, no useful content. Previously listed as a speedy, which it may have been at the time but an anon removed the notice and it's not one now anyway. Andrewa 19:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable; also anon keeps removing vfd notice. Antandrus 22:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I just protected the page to stop that. Postdlf 22:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Join the crowd

dict def, non encyclopedic cohesion | talk 04:23, 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 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 Copyvio. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Assembly

It reads like a brochure. All images are unverified too. Rhobite 04:32, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Inspire

British website that hasn't really gotten going yet. As you might guess, there are many projects called "Project Inspire" or "Inspire Project," so googling produces confusing results. If you google the founders, though, you get only Wikipedia mirrors: [5]. Chick Bowen 04:44, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIGFUD

Probably a hoax. All relevant Google hits are Wikipedia or mirror entries. Delete, perhaps even speedy. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Candor

Lengthy article on a character from a possibly non-existent political thriller called The Interim, which (as noted in the deletion nomination for the book), does not seem to have ever been published. Indeed, no author or publisher is given in the article, which like that of The Interim is long on plot details but contains no information on authorship or publication.


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Afrocentrism. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocentricity

original research (neologism)

Done. Trollderella 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the book is fine. "Afrocentricty" is not the title of the book (though a redirect/disambig would be fine). The current article is not about the book that you are referring to. -155.91.28.231 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I know. We should merge this with Afrocentrism, and disambig with the book. Trollderella 20:46, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music history

Does not contain much information that is not duplicated in the main article History of music --Nlu 05:35, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amtrak station codes

Delete this as it is an unmaintainable list. All the three-letter code links are invalid links. This list is so big, that it can't be fixed, and it gives no useful information. Surely, people should check out the appropriate official site to get the meaning of a code. This sadly has a lot of back-links, but from checking, they are another reason to get rid of this. Three-letter abbreviation disambig pages shouldn't list station codes along with common meanings of the abbreviation rob 05:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. Bjelleklang - talk 08:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all information is verifiable, and useful. There should be no reason why this list cannot eventually be completed. Also, please provide some reason as to why Three-letter abbreviation disambig pages shouldn't list station codes along with common meanings of the abbreviation: if I wanted to find out what the three-letter code was on a luggage label, I would want to search on the code, not have to deduce which list to look it up in. —Phil | Talk 10:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is too large to ever be updated/verified properly. Nobody is going to spend hours reviewing every entry, so that one or two stations can be added or removed as needed. It's filled with masses of errors, nobody has bothered to fix, for instance, it links to the "train code" of OAC which re-directs to Ontario Academic Credit. Of course what it doesn't link to is actual train station articles. I object to these codes being on disambig pages, since it makes it harder to find other information. If we put Amtrack codes on disambig pages, we have to list other train station codes, part codes, and all sorts of codes. The disambig pages are to help people find wikipedia articles, and nothing else. We have to be wary of piece-by-piece additions to disambig pages, which can add up over time. --rob 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. By this logic, Wikipedia:List of lists should also go. --Jacquelyn Marie 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But don't most of those lists actually point to relevant articles, or give red-links for articles that should be made? Notice, I AFD'd this list, but not List of Amtrak stations, which lets people look up a code, and also gives them a related articles. Alpha-sort is needed for full names, but not for 3-letter codes, as a) people don't know the codes usually, b) if they know the codes they can search for it with the browsers "find in page" feature. This list has a substantial number of erroneous blue links (roughly 50% of all links), pointless red-links (e.g. combinations of two city names), and has no useful links (e.g. no stations), and fixing this would probably require remaking it from scratch. --rob 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original data that is best looked up at the original source. Pilatus 10:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but unlink all the Three Letter Abbreviations. We have List of Amtrak stations and listing them by abbreviation is valid and might be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amtrak also has a list of their stations here. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a copy of primary sources, i.e. not a manually maintained mirror of the Amtrak website. Pilatus 11:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this list makes sense when we have lists of airports by IATA code, such as List of airports: N. Of course, the airport list is more useful since people more often refer to the TLA when talking about airports than for stations, but still, various ways of ordering stations is OK with me. I will let my keep vote stay, time will show if the consensus is against me, but I hope it isn't :-). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My guidelines are these: There should be entries for urban infrastructure, such as airports, train stations and bus interchanges. The List of airports is fine, as is the List of Amtrak stations, even though maintenance is a problem. The List of Amtrak station codes that we are discussing here is a duplicate of the List of Amtrak stations and also a copy of original data from the Amtrak website. That is why I think it ought to go. Others may argue different, of course. Pilatus 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have extensive documentation for airports, so why not train stations. - SimonP 14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for same reason we have airport codes. Trollderella 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trollderella. Unfocused 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unoriginal Research. D. G. 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They serve the same purpose as the airport ones. I do think that the names for the lists should be similar to the conventions used in the airport lists, which still need some cleanup. List of airports: N is badly named since it is really by IATA codes which you can get to with the nav article List of airports by IATA code. Vegaswikian 06:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I wouldn't mind a redirect to List of Amtrak stations. --SPUI (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • re-direct to List of Amtrak stations until this article is fixed. Currently, almost every line of this article has a bad-link, no useful links exist, and no user should stumble on this. However, clearly many here have shown an interest in fixing this, and think the content should be saved, so I request we re-direct for now, and when somebody wishes to fix this, they can undo the re-direct, fix the problems, and have a functioning article. --rob 23:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 23:37, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mighty jungle

Umm... not sure what the point of this article is. Coffee 05:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although until reading it I did not know that the duck-billed platypus is a monotreme.—Gaff ταλκ 02:36, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ral315 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Furr

vanity page 4.252.250.72 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. --MarkSweep✍ 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need an artile for the guy who might have been one of the first to call junk email "spam." What are the criteria for notability in a situation like this?—Gaff talk 07:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not vanity. Logophile 07:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not vanity, but is it really notable, ouside of a few usenet circles?—Gaff talk 08:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: one of the most notable people in the history of the Internet. As for whether he is notable outside this topic area, this criterion would presumably be used as justification for deleting the article on Kip Thorne since he is not really notable outside the field of theoretical physics. —Phil | Talk 09:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I don't think that Furr is to usenet what Thorne is to Physics. Thorne has made a career and a living out of Physics, and founded several areas of study. If Furr had spearheaded DejaNews or the Google effort, or was the engineer at Google for the usenet-> groups transformation, then his efforts in usenet might compare to Thorne's in Physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.112.109.251 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 October 2005
  • Keep anyone who annoyed enough people to get a die.die.die newsgroup is worth noting /Rjayres 11:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is asserted. The article makes no claim that the subject has actually done anything much besides being on Usenet and being "credited" with coining the term spam (no source cited for this). Speaking more generally, anyone whose primary claim to fame is "Usenet personality" is non-notable in the extreme. It's the pre-WWW version of forumcruft. flowersofnight 13:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Trollderella 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; he is a very notable, widely-discussed figure in the history of the Net. MCB 18:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now, this article does not WP:CITE sources. Hall Monitor 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep after taking everything into consideration. Brad Templeton, the chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation apparently cites this person as one of the first figures, or possibly the first, to refer to unsolicited electronic messages as "spam" in 1993. As was already mentioned, having three or three-hundred newsgroups named after you within the alt.* hierarchy is a very low bar to clear, so this was not taken into consideration; during the 1990s, all one needed to do in order to create an alt newsgroup was draft a proposal followed by a newgroup and ocassional booster message, and the servers would start picking it up automatically. But it does appear that he played a historically notable role within the foundation of the alt hierarchy which is why I am supporting the inclusion of this article. His part as member of the "Usenet cabal" and relationships with James Parry and Serdar Argic need expansion. Hall Monitor 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have not voted yet either and will not until I better understand The issues raised by Hall Monitor and the criteria for notability of an internet personality. What I see now seems unlikely to offer value to the encyclopedia, unless some sociologist somewhere wants to research history of spam and usenet personalities.—Gaff talk 20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, like articles about particle physics are unlikely to offer value to the encyclopdia unless some physicist somewhere wants to research particle physics. Wikipedia's written for a general audience, and there's lots you can do with an encyclopedia other than academic research. If someone sees a bunch of other people talking about Joel Furr as if everyone knew who he was, and can come here and find out who he is, there's your value. — mendel ☎ 17:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's incredibly unlikely to ever happen, given the subject and his level of notability.
  • Keep per Phil. — mendel ☎ 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete; Can one of you PROVE that he is notable (was he noted anywhere?) or widely discussed? What sources refer to him? I can't find anything. Kibo, Serdar Argic, Robert McElwaine, Archemedes Pu etc, have had magazine articles written about them -- that's notable. Joel Furr did not? As far as I can tell, he's only 'widely discussed' among a cartel of old usenetters. But I'm happy to be proven wrong by an enduring source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.249.219 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to begin with, the guy has at least three newsgroups named after him. --MarkSweep✍ 07:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article itself claims that essentially anyone can create any newsgroup. Given that, having newsgroups named after you isn't a high bar to clear. flowersofnight 13:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, having an alt.name newsgroup is really not a big deal, unless it gets a lot of traffic and actually perpetuates. alt.religion.kibology is a functioning 'religion', alt.fan.andrea.chen is not (even though andrea chen is one of the most inventive constructs in usenet history). But there are literally hundreds of vanity newsgroups that are created and have no traffic. There isn't a significant number of posters perpetuating any of the joel.furr newsgroups, so I don't think they should count. Please look at the list of usenetters in wp and tell me why joel furr should be included. Jorn Barger coined the term 'blog'. Kibo is a verb in the OED. Serdar Argric is known to almost anyone who read usenet at all, ever. There were true architects of usenet, people who ran servers and made decisions for the good of usenet as a whole, not just as a joke here and there, who are not listed. Those guys should totally have wp entries before joel furr does. He never made any lasting admin-level decisions about alt.group propigation, his vanity newsgroups are empty and he was never written up in the print media. Do you guys happen to know him personally or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.249.219 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 October 2005
          • "These other people should have articles" is a peculiar reason to delete an existing article. The order in which articles are created is not a statement of notability! If you think they should have articles, {{sofixit}}. — mendel ☎ 17:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are print sources that cite Furr (now referenced in the article). The other standards for notability are much too high: how many founders of enduring religions are there in total? how many of them hung out on Usenet? how many people have words named after them that made it into the OED? Also, the whole argument (I'm paraphrasing) along the lines "X cannot have a Wikipedia article unless Y and Z do first" does not make sense: the lack of articles about anyone you may consider more important than Mr. Furr does not necessarily reflect an editorial decision. If there is a shortage of articles, it's most likely due to the fact that nobody has written them yet. --MarkSweep✍ 17:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, the argument that 'X cannot have a WP article unless Y and Z do first' is totally no good. What I meant to get across is that those other guys played a much, much bigger role then Furr did and this article is misleading about how big of a role Furr played in those decisions/policy/propagation protocols.
            • The standards for notability are not too high, I don't think. If you've been written about in the print media, you might be worth an entry. If you haven't, then you almost certainly are not notable enough to warrant an entry. Is that incorrect?
            • Ok, I think with the inclusion of the citations we'er finally starting to get somewhere and have some real concrete way to evaluate this guy's notability. Kudos to whoever provided them. But these cites aren't enough in my mind to demonstrate notability. Furr is not widely credited with coining the phrase 'spam'; one of his buddies (who happens to be in charge of the EFF) "thinks he remembers" that Furr was "one of the first ones". This is hearsay. Furr was a source for one article in the Nation -- not by any means the subject of that article (like Kibo and Argic were). And then there are two FAQs, one written by Furr himself and the other written by a fellow usenetter. These cites and the friendly tone of the "keep" votes here add up to a subjective, sort of buddy-buddy cartel among old usenetters to keep Furr listed.
    • As a data point from a quick Web search, Yahoo gives him his own category. Lightly populated, but still there. — mendel ☎ 17:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt.fan.joel-furr.keep.keep.keep DS 13:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally keep. Greetings to Joel from Sketch the Cow; he is a very notable part of early Internet history. --Jscott 17:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: he was a visible person during early Internet history. Would you also vote to keep an article on, say, a prominent moderator of Gaia Online? Gaia almost certainly has as many or more members than Usenet did during Mr. Furr's long-past heyday, and I'm sure the case could be made that the most prominent Gaia personalities are "a very notable part of 2000s Internet history". My point is: just being there at a certain time and making the occasional funny joke does not qualify you to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Despite the additions to this article, no claims have been made for Mr. Furr's notability besides that he was a funny guy and Usenet moderator. Good for him; I'm sure he's a fine man. But he doesn't belong in Wikipedia any more than Gaia moderators do. flowersofnight 18:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there are Gaia moderators about whom an article would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, write or request them! I'm not sure I understand the difference between "X is a part of history" and "X was a part of history at the time"; isn't that how history works? — mendel ☎ 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ephemeral life 15:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the standard was how how many people someone reached during the time that they were doing what made them notable, Bill Graham would be be more notable than Jesus Christ. While Usenet is sadly not what it once was (I fondly recall the days before the Web.) it was at one time the second most important thing on the internet after e-mail, and it still is quite useful. Joel Furr is definitely one of the more notable persons from the early days. Caerwine 16:51, 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 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 MERGED. -Doc (?) 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"tom sawyer, avenger"

Could be redirect to Tom Sawyer Avenger (book) —Gaff talk 06:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Celestianpower háblame 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt_(song)

Redundant, see Nine_inch_nails#The_Downward_Spiral  freshgavinTALK   06:22, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 08:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MWorks

New company vanity bio. delete Has been speedied a couple times, as was taken verbatim (ie copyvio) from company website. Now reposted, but appears to be nn company advert. Posted under username with same name as company. —Gaff talk 06:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I speedied the original version of this article under WP:CSD A8 because it was an obvious copyvio. Those problems have now been solved (the article's been rewritten). The only issue that's at stake in this AfD is whether the subject of the article is encyclopedic or not. --MarkSweep✍ 06:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's not encyclopedic, it's consumer information ("Robust UI, intuitive and consistent for customers"). We aren't told why the product is notable, its impact in computing and why it is different than similar products. This appears to be a very recently produced product, so it should be widely used, get lots of media attention or be a breakthrough to have an article. iPod would be an example. -- Kjkolb 09:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; still an advert written in marketingspeak. MCB 18:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I speedily deleted it, too. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:47, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NauFal WaFFle, The Blue Album (NauFal WaFFle), Naufal waffle (redirect)

A very elaborate hoax, it seems. 213 Google hits, nothing verifiable about the "artist". Voting to delete. Note to whoever's closing the deletion: If it's deleted, make sure to get the images used on the pages, as well as any links that the original user added to other pages. Ral315 WS 07:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --rob 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --DenisMoskowitz 17:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree -- (drini's page|☎) 05:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Can (or has) an admin deal/dealt with the causer(s) of this. It seems User:24.11.71.38 and User:HipHopHead88 are one and the same. What's worrying, is the original edits by User:HipHopHead88 were well done (fully wikified article, back links, images uploaded), showing somebody who's been around wikipedia for a bit. It's getting difficult to undo changes to related articles, since they look "plausable" to other users, who make subsequent valid changes, after the fake ones. --rob 05:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (vanity, more than anything) Euphoria 05:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me why this needs to be deleted. NauFal WaFFle is an established young producer with ties to huge producers such as Dr. Dre & Scott Storch. In one year, he may be one of the top three producers out. Wikipedia has articles on fifteen year old chess masters, what is wrong with a fifteen year old producer who has much more critical acclaim and celebrity potential?
  • Comment: I removed the images from the articles and put them on IFD. Two of them appear to be an unauthorized copy of real album covers which were altered to put this person's name on them. The logo image, probably wasn't a such a big deal, but without a source, it needed to be removed also. --rob 08:44, 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 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 speedy delete under whatever that CSD criteria is --Carnildo 20:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo19k

Delete as this is self promotion by non-notable person. Bjelleklang - talk 07:43, 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Doletzky

Reason why the page should be deleted Altmusfan 07:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now speedy deleted your experiment. jni 09:11, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)tally on talk page[reply]

Kitchen distribution

Poorly written and un-wikified, one of three edits by IP address 24.51.38.241. Google search for ""kitchen distribution" buffalo" produces 120 results. Delete. Joel7687 08:04, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Jni. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caddoo

This seems to be a very short article about a rare surname with no basis other than vanity -- 81.99.181.231 08:05, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to poohsticks. WIkipedia is not a travel guide. -- RHaworth 14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Pooh Sticks bridge

Just a joke, I suppose Mu 08:18, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick porn

By the definition given in this article, practically any pornography is "gimmick porn", and the term is thus meaningless. Looks like original research. Delete. -- The Anome 08:45, 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 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. Ral315 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author Alliance

A non-notable group of teens from fanfiction.net, cruft. --Anetode 08:51, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hard core gamer

Some kind of bizarre social commentary I guess, written by User:Gamingexpert. Nothing in the article is verifiable, let alone falsifiable. Seems to be a lengthy POV essay about social trends or something, but the premise of the article is unsalvagable imo. Ryan Delaney talk 09:29, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contingent analysis

This is an original concept, first to be mentioned by the owner of a small firm in an interview that is still to be published. See Talk:Contingent analysis for a discussion first before voting. - DocendoDiscimus 09:33, 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 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, unverifiable. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manji hirani

This "article" has almost nothing to it. It has about one line of what might actually be considered article content, but that fails to explain context or make a good argument for notability. It also contains a notice that "This page is coming soon." It contains a link to a page that does not appear to mention "Manji Hirani" and it is signed and timestamped by User:Hirani disciple, whose only two edits relate to this article. Delete, along with accompanying image. Joel7687 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just tell you this article will have a lot more info on it and there is a group of us working on it, just give us some time and let the fruits rippen.

  • Question to the author - The link goes to the page of a Mahant Swami Maharaj, who is somebody in the Swaminarayan sect. What is the connection between him and Manji Hirani ?
Could not get a single decent hit for Hirani, which is unusual for such godmen Tintin 23:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will have more info on him soon please give some time

I have created the basic version of the site in due time it will be changed to the advance version. User: Pramukh Swami 16:41 GMT 17/10/05

Manji Bapa has now possessed unlimited supernatural powers. He was able to see and hear things many miles away, he knew the past, future, and present, he could make impossible tasks possible, and he raised to great spiritual heights for everyone that came into his contact.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS

Probably hoax, Delete  --  W  P Talk 09:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedied. posting a list of non-famous persons and claiming they have AIDS is vandalism. - Nunh-huh 09:57, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ral315 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Garnett

Was listed for speedy under A7, and it's true the article does not assert her notability, but she's linked to from several articles, so maybe the article just needs expanding. No vote from me yet. Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:52, 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 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. Someone might want to examine the inconsistency of the two related AfD results. -Splashtalk 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinability theory of truth

Original research. Apparently part of the author's dissertation. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an important and informative page on a credible theory of truth. The heading "Robust Theories of Truth" would be incomplete without an adumbration of this robust theory! Also ,there is no original work here. My syntheses come from others!! Arhat Virdi

  • Probably delete: no non-Wikipedia Google hits [7], compared to tens of thousands for other theories of truth [8] [9], implies that this may actually be original research. An expert second opinion would be useful, though; alternatively, the contributor could provide some verifiable references. Haeleth 12:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auhtoritative references have been added.

  • Comment See the ongoing discussion on Afd for Indefinability Theory of Truth. Dlyons493 Talk 16:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still reads like a long dissertation and not an encyclopedia article. The references are not so much references as just more reading on something that I just read too much about. An encyclopedia article on a topic should introduce it in a concise fashion. Here is an example of what it should not be: An indefinabilist about truth subscribes to the correspondence view- that truth is agreement with reality- but resists drawing the conclusion that this succeeds in proffering a definition or explanatory reduction of the concept. If it is a valid and touted theory of knowledge, perhaps it could be placed into epistemology? As it stands it is entirely too cumbersome for this encyclopedia.—Gaff ταλκ 02:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Delete the page. Will have to wait until this view becomes received wisdom before it is acceptable to articulate this very serious contender for what a theory of truth looks like. Accepted that the article does not fit into "encyclopedic" style at the moment; instead of revision I shall first advertise it globally, letting it (deservedly) receive a wider audience than it so far has. Best wishes, Arhat Virdi

  • Indefinabilitists look like a sub-variety of Correspondence Theory to me, especially if you're taking Davidson as a primary example. They fit the definition on the Correspondence theory page that "The correspondence theory of truth states that something is rendered true by the existence of a fact with corresponding elements and a similar structure. A rejection of any sort of relativism about truth, this theory maintains that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world." which says nothing about whether or not such a correspondence constitutes a definition of truth. Why not add a short mention of indefinabilists as a sub-variety of correspondence theory on the correspondence theory page? You could add Alston's Minimalist theory of truth too if you wanted. 139.102.45.119 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Brian M. 12:10, 20 oct, 2005[reply]
  • Indefinabilists are certainly not a subset of correspondencists about truth. Someone holding that to say of a statement that it is true means that the objects and relations expressed by that statement correspond or fit-in with the world is painting a distinctly non-indefinabilist picture. Correspondence theorists argue that their theory points to truth's being a "seriously dyadic" relation, with truth-bearers (sentences, or the proposition expressed by them) and truth-makers (facts lying in the extra-lingual realm) being distinct entities. An indefinabilist says something quite different; that there is a conceptual equivalence between saying "p is true" and saying "p corresponds to the world" and that this being so is not an insubstantial claim i.e., truth is an informative notion, not redundant or dispensable one as the minimalists or disquotationalists or any other variety of deflationism would have truth be. This answers also why minimalism's only bedfellows ought to be other deflationists (by the way, Paul Horwich is the provenience, and only current defender, of minimalism- not Alston, who is a dyed-in-the-wool realist about truth. See Alston's "A Realist Conception of Truth" 1996, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY). Arhat Virdi
  • Delete Seems to be non-notable and original research. You're correct in pointing out that this won't be encyclopedic content until it becomes a widely accepted (or at least debated) theory in philosophy. --Clay Collier 22:21, 25 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Celestianpower háblame 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Stephen T. Wheeler

Non-notable person. The only Google hits the on "Reverend" pointed to this article and a Palm pilot site. Kross | Talk 11:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles, a criteria for speedy deletion--Kewp (t) 21:12, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of project management software

I originally added an {{expert}} tag to this article, in the hope that it could be improved. It is becoming more and more clear to me, however, that it's unlikely to ever be more than a collection of hard-to-verify entries, and the article's very nature makes it a fertile breeding ground for spam and POV. Further problems include the impossibility of keeping the page up-to-date, and the inherent difficulty of an informed, NPOV treatment of the subject. I believe Wikipedia would be better off without this blatant vehicle for advertisements. Ashenai (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if I did have any faith in the neutrality and factual correctness of the article, this table is not useful for making decisions (which seems to be its purpose). This would be better done as an entire website in itself with appropriate filtering options and such. The few descriptions that have any amount of detail in the descriptions are excessively jargony and generally look like marketing spiels. —HorsePunchKid→龜 17:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as unlikely ever to become encyclopedic. Difficult to argue against comparison pages directly (Comparison of web browsers was even considered for featured status once), but the others I know of are all well maintained; it doesn't look like anyone cares about this one enough to keep it pruned down to notable programs or keep the spam out, let alone add any useful information at all. Haeleth 12:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is blank.

Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Moral realm. Please do not modify it. The result was merge. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grainger

Looks like a complete hoax. Google finds no Michael Grainger in the Newcastle United F.C. line up, and there are definitely no 1853 players there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harchester.net

Non-notable TV series fanclub website. Delete. Qwghlm 12:38, 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 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 userfy then delete the resulting redirect. --Celestianpower háblame 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sobiwan

Advert for personal website. 216.126.246.123 12:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Got logged out by error. CambridgeBayWeather 12:52, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asterism (religion)

This article is nothing but utter nonsense. KHM03 12:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it's been speedily deleted by R. fiend. Should this debate be closed? Optichan 16:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. KHM03 17:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Rational objectivism. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep per withdrawal of the nomination by nominator. Acetic'Acid 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy

This issue should be part of the main air america article. The separate article is being used to maintain a POV fork. This account is a sockpuppet of the same individual of the 'Nagin Buses' POV fork. If the POV spin is eliminated from the article it would be short enough to fit in the main Air America article.

Adding to VfD page as it wasn't added properly before --badlydrawnjeff 13:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Gorgonzilla 14:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. This article was originally part of the Air America Radio article, and moved into its own for space considerations without protest. Article is well-sourced, article is currently under dispute for POV issues (and has been brought to third opinion with no response as of yet), and POV issues should be dealt with within the article and is not a valid reason for deletion per WP's deletion policy. [10]. Finally, there's question as to whether this is a politically motivated VfD nominaton given the "Nagin Buses" reference, which doesn't seem to have any analogy to this article whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff 14:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the one who split this into it's own article, and I did not do it for any POV reason whatsoever. I did it for space alone. It is a subject that it seems a few people want to discuss, and was taking over the entire AAR article. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. This article has important information about Air America. The folks that are attempting to have this information completely removed from Wikipedia. That is censorship and Wikipedia frowns upon censorship. --- --Keetoowah 15:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll withdraw the VFD. I had assumed it was another 'Long John Silver' POV fork specials, see the First responder history for a surviving example of the genre.

I still think that the same points could be made more forcefully and effectively in far fewer words. In wikipedia the point is not space, its the reader's attention. Splitting off criticism into ghetto articles is a bad idea. --Gorgonzilla 16:48, 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 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. -Doc (?) 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vampyrouss

nn band, fails WP:MUSIC guidelines Haeleth 13:51, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc (?) 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Weiler

I'm aware of the precedent regarding professional athletes, but a) I don't know it applies to Formula One drivers, and b) this is the weakest case I've ever seen. One race. Still, only weak delete because this isn't something about which to be passionate. Xoloz 13:53, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolous Nightbreed

nn band, fails WP:MUSIC (no releases, even!) Haeleth 13:54, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsum effects on enviroment

Couldn't find CSD criteria that fit, but nothing links to it, there's no history, and it's clearly a nonsense page (though not quite a insult page, CSD:A6) Interiot 14:01, 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 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. -Doc (?) 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Robinson

Supposedly contributed some drawings to a vanity press book. Not exactly notable. Delete for the same reasons as the Elizabeth Aldridge article now on afd JJay 14:03, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Tenneson

Vanity page, copyvio pfctdayelise 14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nomination. Copyvio from here - is it a copyvio if it's your own site? I am listing this on AfD instead of Speedy delete because I don't know if the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion. - pfctdayelise 14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm most emphatically not an expert on the field photography, but if she's won numerous awards and been named among the ten most influential female photographers in the history of photography by American Photo Magazine, that sounds like she's notable enough. Google doesn't return all that many hits, but the ones that I do get seem to be relevant enough. Or am I missing something here? Unless I am, I'd say keep and rewrite, because right now it's pretty damn far from a decent encyclopedia article. Hard facts are required. It does feel like a vanity page, but the subject appears to be notable enough nonetheless. (And obviously, if you own the copyright for a piece of text, you can use that in Wikipedia, no problem -- though after that you can only blame yourself if it shows up somewhere else, possibly modified, what with the whole GNU Free Documentation License thing and all.) -- Captain Disdain 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio as per guideline A8. She is notable enough to have an article in her own right but not a copyvio. The copyvio was from an anonymous address so we don't know if its her or not - it is inappropriate content in either case. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails "commercial content provider" and "48 hours" clauses of CSD A8. Still a copyvio though. Subject is notable, but delete this until such time as someone writes a proper article. Haeleth 00:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 09:44, 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 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. -Doc (?) 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Snow

non-notable person Gator1 14:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary (band)

nn band Gator1 14:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candelight is reasonalby well-known. EG Emperor was on that label. Spearhead 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Spearhead.--Isotope23 13:27, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg Johnston Company Formations Ltd

As the article stands in its current form, it looks more like advertising than anything else. If it could be lengthened it could be kept, but at the moment, I'd say delete as it doesn't contain anything but contact information, and services offered. Bjelleklang - talk 14:47, 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 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google it

Neologism/dictionary definition -- Kjkolb 15:26, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 20:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Computer Society

non notable webpage. Delete. -- SoothingR 15:33, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinger

Winnipeg slang for a large beer can. Kjkolb 15:44, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emese

Origin story for the name Emese -- Kjkolb 15:50, 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 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. -Doc (?) 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle head

Not exactly a widespread neologism, this one. Not that I don't enjoy poop as much as the next guy, but c'mon... I don't think this quite qualifies for a speedy deletion. More's the shame. -- Captain Disdain 16:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it. it is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadification

Neologism/dictionary definition -- Kjkolb 16:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn neologism --MacRusgail 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure why this article is being considered for deletion. I stumbled across it recently and added the last point about the gamespot review. Searching google for the term shows a number of references to the phrase in the exact context as defined in the article. It is subject specific (video games), and while clearly a neologism, it is still valid--Daryl.welsh@gmail.com 23:41, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 08:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muckyboots

Blog vanity. No Alexa rank [14], no backwards links in Google [15]. The author of this article also added the link to Blog and Template:Conservatism. Rhobite 16:38, 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 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. -Splashtalk 22:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Maria

Was tagged as CSD, but didn't seem to fall under any. Probably nn, lots of external links. Maybe nn-bio, although I'm not sure. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:25, 2 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGNiSM

Using wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise for an artist, self promotion, advertising, derivitive work from NiGHTS into dreams possible copyright violation (Unsigned vote by 83.167.250.38, whose only contributions have been adding this to AfD.)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Redirect. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC commands

commands are either a how-to or a database article - both are violations of Wikipedia policies. Scriberius 14:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Reno’s Dance Party

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

23:29, 24 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 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 COPYVIO. Someone should have tagged and bagged this rather than leaving it open. We don't 'vote' on copyvios! -Splashtalk 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies

Wikipedia is not the place to promote a commercial magazine.

  • Speedy Delete: The Journal doesn't appear to be notable, and the included subscription information tells me this is a promotional piece, not encyclopedic content. --MJ(☎|@|C) 20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neutral: The article has made some markable improvements and has lost it's commercial nature; I am not in a position to furter judge the content or the notability, so I no longer vote for a delete. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This is not a "promotional piece." The author merely thought to be thorough in description of the journal: will delete subscription information immediately. I believe the article is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion because of this journal's (JJRS) importance and influence in the study of Japan, religion, history, anthropology, and East Asia in general. Jb05-crd 02:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription information has been deleted from the article. For anyone familiar with the study of religion and East Asia, the journal is indeed a notable one. Recommend not deleting. Jb05-crd 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. -Splashtalk 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse scandal

There is nothing especially wrong with this article, I don't think, but someone else did the same thing on the same day. The other article has a more relevant title and I don't remember how to do mergers. I'm going to take the useful stuff, that's not duplicated, in this article over to that one if I can work it in.--T. Anthony 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 speedy delete as attack page. --Carnildo 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Smedley

This afd was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, attack page. (Not short, so not a csd.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Ulmer

Delete. Self promotion and non-notable. 64.108.199.247 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed, this is a vanity page by a person who is not notable, and is, in fact, a self-confessed Wiki vandal (see link 1). This biography has been posted as the result of an IMDb feud with another IMDb user and a "who's more important" competition. See: [18] John Ulmer, who claims to have once been employed for a brief time by CNBC Studios in London ought to be deleted as typical and non-notable, and John Ulmer, the unrelated but credited actor should be retained. At the very least, John Ulmer allegedly formerly of CNBC should be moved to the user's ([19]) own user-page, as per Wiki Vanity article policy. User's claims about Roger Ebert, Roger Avary and Quentin Tarantino, and his own film scripts are unverifiable. 203.49.137.60 02:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shamrock! Or should I say Monroe?

Glad you could contribute to the page's deletion process.

As for the "unverifiable" claims that my content has been read by Ebert and Tarantino, et al...care for me to scan and upload their feedback to me? Which include autographed books?

And would you like me to scan over my legal papers pertaining to my employment/internship at CNBC on Fleet Street in London, England?

Cheers, Monroe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.94.27 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 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 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 was candidate for speedy deletion. Article incorrectly referred to Afd. Accordingly deleted. Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Rogers

As far as I can tell this person is not notable in any way, and I believe that this is a vanity article. I am going to put this article up for deletion. Keoki 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jpractice

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to KVCD. -Splashtalk 02:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KDVD

Information looks to be duplicated in KVCD. (This is just based on a quick glance at the linked website. I don't know much about this, so I could be wrong) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.11.92 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 all. Ral315 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt beyer films and Kurt Gunter Beyer and redirects

Also the redirect Kurt Beyer Films. Also Kurt Gunter Beyer and its redirect Kurt Raymond Beyer.

  • Not notable. The referenced website is one page with "All Hail the Mighty Kurt?" on it. No Google hits. Kurt Gunter Beyer's only claim to notability is as head of this 'organisation'.DJ Clayworth 16:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, for a long while there were various flash cartoons on there, pretty goofy actually. Also, I've seen Ghost Fights on a myspace website for a while, but it was taken down after the link broke. - Harry Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.85.131 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Mr. Beyer is quite a celebrity here in Montclair; his masterful film works are considered sacred by many townsfolk. I happen to have met the man in the flesh, and have had the pleasure of taking part in a few of his earlier films, such as "Henry Clay- Caught On Tape!" and "The Beast". As a routine contributor to Wikipedia (I've "edited" the George W. Bush page many a time) I feel that my statement here should nt be taken lightly. -Mattie I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.3.77 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The Kurt Beyer Films website used to be much larger, and receive many hits, but has recently been changed due to a hiatus from filming. Kurt Beyer truly is a local celebrity, and although I do not know him personally, I have seen his work and think he is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. -Andre Cernasov Oct 6, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.179.108 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides being one of the great minds in Montclair, NJ...Mr. Beyer, ironically, has a great fashion sense. he taught me to pop my collar, and since then, the girls can't take their hands off me. Kurt Gunter Boyd Jefferson Carmichael Beyer's genius should be reflected in this great biography. -Art Core...Velay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.9.194 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm Kurt Beyer and all of these facts are correct. I don't know how some of these things are remembered, but somehow it is almost complete now. KurtGbeyer 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, RickK memorial sockpuppet limit breached. (Also per nom.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable webfilm creator & company. So this AfD is where all the missing left socks are...--Isotope23 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, puppetfest. MCB 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete puppet party. Denni☯ 03:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Above-average puppet-gushing made me laugh, though. Dottore So 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE, 'tis a real thing. leave it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.7 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

—KurtGBeyer


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Club

NN club. Can be a patent nonsense. 202.156.6.60 17:08, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops college improv

NN university club which is currently linked only to the AFD candidate Poonanner; statements like "Many feel as though Bishops College has set a new standard of improvisational theatre to Newfoundland, and has raised the bar numerous times" (the only other content the article even contains apart from the initial description of what it is) are unverifiable POV. Delete. Bearcat 17:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to The Daily Show. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Das Dualwiktorkeinekanzlormerklenschröederlowenbraudeadheatlickin'kopf

Not notable, prob. belongs on "The Daily Show" page, and who's going to type in a title like this anyway? MacRusgail 17:35, 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 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. -Splashtalk 22:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cipiripi

Non-notable product. If they want to advertise, they should pay! 146.176.63.177 17:38, 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 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. -Doc (?) 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wafty Crank Records

Non-notable record label. Two of their "most notable" bands have been deleted; the rest are redlinks too. AMG doesn't know them or any of their bands, their web site has no Alexa rank at all, and 60% of their google hits are to Wikipedia and its mirrors. —Cryptic (talk) 17:38, 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 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.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barons di San Marciano

Not a real encyclopedia entry; it doesn't give any useful or encyclopedic information. It has been previously submitted for deletion but no consenses was reached. The author complained that he hadn't had enough time to update it, but now it's been almost a year. Jeff 17:44, 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 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. -Splashtalk 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mvelopes Personal

Advertisment, no notability established. --S.K. 17:46, 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 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. Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

metastupid

This article has been speedily deleted several times. Its various incarnations have satisfied criteria for speedy deletion A1, A3, and A6. However, the current incarnation doesn't match any speedy deletion criterion. It is, however, a stub article about a non-subject (the title being an adjective not a noun) with no possibility of expansion, that is original research with a non-word as its title to boot. Uncle G 17:47, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to indigenous inhabitant. -Splashtalk 02:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-indigenous inhabitant

Article seems to be dicdef, possibly POV, and should be merged into Hong Kong article if salvageable MacRusgail 17:51, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muhafazah

A duplication of governorate; merge. – Timwi 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge — I think this request is bit odd. I believe that we should have an article called Muhafazah, but, if its content is the lacklustre list it is now, the content should be moved to Governorate and the first page redirect to it. The proper procedure for this. I believe, is cut and paste, rather than page deletion. One problem, different countries have different official translations of muhafazah: they might not be officially called govenorates in all places. --Gareth Hughes 17:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as guberniya was kept. Of course extend. Problem with subdivision translations into english is that they are different from country to country. the four articles wilayah, mintaqah, imarah and muhafah give a short overview about these arab words. This would be lost if merged with provinces, regions, states etc. And because the translations are different from country to country this would bring some wilayah to one article some others to another. Interwiki links will not work. At the end: the terms are official, for some we may never find an official translation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Helpful to maintain inter-navigation among Arab subdivision types.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:40, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Celestianpower háblame 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interpublic Group of Companies Incorporated

Advertising? MacRusgail 18:03, 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 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. Ral315 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foot-pound-second system

Seems to be more original research by Rktect. Unlike the Metric system, Imperial and classical measurement systems don't have well-defined sets of base units. --Carnildo 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Carnildo is simply incorrect when he says classical measurement systems don't have well defined sets of base units. He's also incorrect when he says feet pounds and seconds are a subset of US customary units. Greek feet, Roman feet etc; are not a subset of US customary units. Likewise the second is a classical rather than a modern division. User Drini claims that this is content previously deleted via "Afd" what is an Afd? Let him be more specific Federal Street 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Afd" refers to "articles for deletion," which is the process under which the article is going now. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bah Rktect, you getting a new sockpuppet (evidence gathered at [22], Egil can provide proof if necessary) account won't be of use to claim ignorance. You seem well how to discuss on an AfD page. -- (drini's page|☎) 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about a foot-pound-second system on the page referenced by Drini, and there is nothing anywhere about a foot-pound-second system having been previously discussed. Since people are familiar with this system and there is no other article which specifically addresses it and it isn't a subset of US units, is there any valid objection to an article on this topic? Federal Street 10:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3rk3tect, there are three different subsystems of units called "foot-pound-second" systems: the absolute foot-pound-second system, the gravitational foot-pound-second system, and the engineering foot-pound-second system. These are used in calculations, because they form "coherent" (or nearly so) systems of units. None of these systems include any "fingers" or "palms" or "cubits" or "roods" or "kennings" among their units. As a matter of fact, they don't even include any gallons of any type (Imperial, U.S. liquid, whatever), no yards or acres or ounces either--any of those units must first be converted into the particular fps system being used before using it, and often need to be converted out of that system at the end once the calculations are completed, to express the result in some units not contained within that system. Gene Nygaard 14:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Google test is sufficient to show the existence and use of these terms, and their meaning when used. Gene Nygaard 14:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits
gravitational foot-pound-second 207
gravitational fps 588
absolute fps system 67
engineering fps 346
Delete. Sockpuppet creation by User:Federal Street = User:Rktect. Furthermore, the term "foot-pound-second system of units" is indeed used, as some other commentator mentioned above. However, this terminology is normally applied only to specific coherent or nearly coherent subsystems of units, the first of which only came into use in 1879, systems which do not include any inches or ounces or miles (there exist other "inch-pound-second" systems of units too). These specific systems are often further identified as more specific subsystems, as they are in the table in the pound article, as the "absolute foot-pound-second system" (uses poundals for force and pounds for mass), the "gravitational foot-pound-second system" (uses slugs for mass and pounds (pounds-force) for force, never used before the 20th century), and the "engineering foot-pound-second system" (uses neither poundals nor slugs; uses pounds for mass and pounds-force for force). Gene Nygaard 13:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsence DV8 2XL 18:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If an encyclopic article on the foot-pound-second system should be limited to what someone finds in a quick google search, why does Wikipedia exist? Before you begin to talk about foot-pound-second systems in Newtonian terms it makes sense to look at what they were before they were combined into a system. Why not just add the content you feel is missing to articles called the "inch-pound-second" system, the "absolute foot-pound-second system", the "gravitational foot-pound-second system" and the "engineering foot-pound-second system" which as you describe them all appear to be different from the foot pound second system ? Federal Street 10:17, 20 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). It might be a copyright violation from [23], but I think there is a fair chance that the text may be released under the GFDL, so I contacted the author of the website. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

0DFx

tagged as a speedy for blatent copyvio, but the source is not a commercial contetn provider, adn may well grant a release. However, this appears to be an article about a non-notable, no defualt band. If we don't want the article, the copyright status of the text is moot. DES (talk) 18:11, 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 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. -Splashtalk 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kazraine Maars

Was up for speedy under A7, but it asserts his notability by dint of being lead singer of Vampyrouss, which is also up for deletion. Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:14, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Yong Po

Was listed for speedy under A7, but it does sort of assert his notability. If anyone can verify, cleanup and wikify. Otherwise just delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:25, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fairhall

Subject is not notable enough to merit an entry Lukobe 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE per nomination. Lukobe 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete· Original research and non-significant. A religious leader with no followers is just a lunatic. Average Earthman 21:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 235 google hits for "Jeff Fairhall" suggests no significance. Article has been deleted before, but I don't know if it's essentially a recreation. Punkmorten 21:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable crackpot. MCB 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I know that there are a lot of people in Seattle who consider this man to be cutting-edge performance art if nothing else. I would have expected people who watch the Fremont page to appreciate that, but perhaps not. The people who say that Fairhall does not have a following are just not into the kind of fun that people like Fairhall attract, and they are those who like their art sanctioned by the consensus of the "garbage collage in a museum" majority. However, I wrote the article, and it is original research, so it does not fit wikipedia guidelines. Delete it if you find it inappropriate, but do not come crying to me when EVERYTHING HE EVER SAID COMES TRUE. Chiggieflip 17:19, 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 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bromwich

Tagged for speedy, and almost an nn-bio, but the claims to publication are claims to notability in my book. Still, a clear delete. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page --Leo


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Doc (?) 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (comic)

Was listed for speedy, but isn't a candidate. I cannot judge the notability of web comics, so no vote from me. Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:18, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_17&oldid=25761162"