Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 18

Guide to deletion

October 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 19:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yang Mingzhi

This may be a bio for non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang but it is rambling and incoherent. -- RHaworth 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unsalvageable. Jkelly 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• This doesn't resemble an encyclopedia article in any way or form, and has no potential to ever become one simply because it's nonsense. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 01:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely useless. ♠DanMS 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencylopedic stream-of-consciousness rant --Anetode 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an essay, not an article.  freshgavin^TALK   05:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to the long ass sockpuppet rant that I didn't bother to read because Wikipedia is Not A Propaganda Machine. Anyone advocating for their article that poorly couldn't have made a decent wikified article. Karmafist 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic nonsense, incoherent, OR, POV essay, what else? MCB 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this kind of thing ruins Wikipedia, multiple rule violations, please delete --202.7.166.168 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no original research, unencyclopedic, sheesh ... Alex.tan 09:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinion. Guidance would have been a good medium. Next time.

• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Feel free to recreate with actual encyclopedic content. --Ashenai (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete incoherent rant about ... ??? Dottore So 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either patent nonsense or very, very close to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Current version is little more than patent nonsense with no context and a weblink to a website. I'd say speedy, but for due dilligence I combed the history and read the article that previously occupied this space. That article is apparently original research and thus deletable. (per "This story is easily verifiable - names, dates, places - everything. True credibility. I am the researcher.") Based on the earlier article (the version when the AfD was added) I still say delete... and in fact I'm reverting back to that article even though it appears the author is the one who changed it, just so voters are at least looking at a version with content.--Isotope23 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unintelligible. CLW 14:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rambling essay, not an article. Probably original research as well, but who can really be bothered trawling through that much dense, incomprehensible prose? Cut it short, and cut the comments short, if you want an article. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise for obscurantist sesquipedalianism. Average Earthman 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Del Dlyons493 Talk 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh! Delete. I don't know what it is, but it's not encyclopedic. --Optichan 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ??? --pgk^(talk) 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindless ranting, incoherent and inchoate, that can never make any kind of rational sense. Eddie.willers 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

REMOVE - Immediately - Copyright violations and infringement of protected works. "Unauthorized use" of my name in Public Forum. Thank you. R. Renda - Karmafist, see email to you.

• Keep. Just kidding. Delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon Comments
I've moved all of the random anon ranting down here since he can't vote anyway due to his newbie status and is disrupting the process with his longwinded jabbering. I've also blocked him until this AfD is over so his disruptive behavior here won't continue.Karmafist 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider about the block? I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it's quite normal to get upset about an AfD process. The cleanup is useful, and much appreciated, but I feel the block is a bit much. Nominating a person's article for deletion and then silencing him seems a bit unfriendly to me. He's done nothing wrong, after all. --Ashenai (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything truly disruptive like removing the AfD notice or changing anyone's votes. Blocking is rather extreme in this case. I have no objection to having the long essays moved to a seperate section, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Karmafist about the move. Good idea. Support Ashenai and Starblind about the block, though. AndyJones 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll unblock him now. All I want is this page to be free of nonsense, although to clarify, I didn't nominate this article for deletion, even though it's pretty obvious that it should be deleted. Hopefully by now he'll understand that his rants won't be tolerated on here. Karmafist 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remain appreciate the comment about an essay, not an article freshgavin. The input was worthy of something. Maybe can figure it out since am in the newspaper and mag biz and the difference can be important - notable. Then again to be here may not. We'll have an editor try turn it to an Article over the week and see what happens. To "conform." Maybe more a Media Alert than an essay, in short. maybe. But the stockpuppet comment really did prove a point about what this so called "discussion" was / is about. Maybe that fool instead of using the word "ass" in what is supposed to be (thought to be) a credibile arena should do as said in the first Remain response -- go either learn to read or sit back and just keep re-reading Jack and Jill. They would get off on Jack and Jill more. Well at least the Jack part. This is so good. And that person confirmed the credibility of the "remain" response. Those like KF who comment without knowing content. As their own admission of stupidty. Funny if all this becomes music to someone else's eyes somewhere else. Could be a good story here in itself. If it were A Propaganda who would waste their time here. That Karma ... "fist" (nice, wonder where it has been - the fist that is) should surely learn what The Word - karma means. And they just did. About a time and a place. It comes. Now KF can go sit on Swaggart's lap to get the good feel better - or maybe find a Catholic Priest, for little boys - to sit on. Incoherent, hummm MCB can it be the world in fogged glasses they live in is just ... more nonsense. May be. But who is to Judge, right ? Nonsense is not the article in question. But the fogged glassed would explain every thing. Article or essay may be just about POV. A truth in there somewhere. Oh right - I did not see anything in the rules that said when an author or researcher comments in response - they are called stockpuppets. No less other names. And what, the rules said ... don't take it personal ? All must be fooling / kidding one's self. A good example. Another "good read." Was an interesting exchange though. Entertaining. More like instead of a stockpuppet - it was the editor author taking responsibility. Instead of showing yourselves for what you really are you should just edit the page blank except for the 2 words - cover up, and save everyone else lot of trouble. And then like it was said ... those others can go back to reading Jack and Jill. Anyway, "freshgavin" thanks for the intelligent response. Appreciate it. it said ... not everyone learned that AIDS kills from just listening to what their mommy tells them while growing up as there mom was wiping their "ass" for them. Thanks. This was all very interesting. When I see this pedia come up on an engine we'll remember the world's blogs serve the international communities with more. Until we meet again. And of course, we will. Maybe some people should go back to gossip with their schoolmates - would serve themselves in a self serving manner better that way. At least after 20 or 30 years they may learn to read (or use what little between their ears life gave them). Has nothing to do with doing something good for any international community. Oh btw - we have been news people for over 25 years. And History has been written. Right here. Date noted. Well earned. At least gets the blood moving. The brain working. Researcher2 : )
• Remain - Opinion - carefully reviewing the rules of participation it states both author and others may comment on the discussion. Reasons for delete are noted to be discussed. If it were title of the article in discussion then it may hold merit to be changed. That is not what we see here above. I would note "non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang." Which I do not think the article is about simply just one person. There seems to be many. But the subject in first comment is "non notable". Yet I would ask is that coming - and please do not take this personal -- does that come from one who has done no research regarding facts as they too speak and make comment. The person Yang Mingzhi (asian culture reverses first and last name when addressed outside of America - if you did not know that too) Yang mingzhi does come out of a community as an on air person to a viewership of only 100 million people plus. But is it that since those people are of a different culture and then they need to be discounted into the bin of "non notable". of course, what is a mere 100 million people or a 1.3 billion people or someone involved with that - as a notable person ? Also all the people involved cited in the article, are well known press people in the circles of the elite from one side of the world to the other. If I worked on a farm what would I know ? And these non notables may not be known as you know them as your neighbor next door. Yet maybe they are the neighbor next door that you should know the names of and do not ? Do you know the name of every neighbor on your block or around you block ? One could be Barry Diller but would you know ? Or do you even know who he is ? Just surely another non notable (in real life - modern history and culture, TV culture that in). But no one watches TV right. People who earned a standing in "modern day" human affairs should not be discounted. Based on what was just said, someone might say this opinion is a rant. Especially seeing length. Oh why -- because it takes time to read ? Like a magazine. That is why a magazine comes out monthly -- because it heavy in content -- to be Digested. WHo created Rolling Stone Magazine's Fashion section and department or Spin Magazine's Fashion sectin ans department do you know that ? Another of no merit just a 400 billion dolar industry in America alone, that's all. Maybe I missed the definition of an encyclopedia in Webster's dictionary. Yet again it, the article in question and this opinion is set down with facts, places, dates, people by name, and merit. Is that a rant or just something that does not meet someone's approval or time schedule to ... really ... look into ? Another comment "unsalvagable." It is strange that facts and events of real Human history are unsalvagable, at anytime. Why is that so when what is written are again facts that have been and are happening - also note: with happenings that include over distances of time. As one issue -- of course, not the main issue, is Immigration Marriage fraud, punishable in America by 5 years in jail and/or $250,000 find (according to law set in stone by Congress, Senate, and the Legislature). But you all knew that. Where in this encyclopedia is there made mention that marriage fraud is how "5" of the Atta clan acommplished taking down the world trade center buildings ? Is it when you learn about one history does it not lend light to how it could effect many others ? The comment open to discussion call "nonsense". Since when are facts - real events reduced to someone's opinion of "nonsense" ? How did YOU yourself find out AIDS kills everyone. Did someone's mother tell them ? Just another passing thought. It was that 4 page CDC flyer that was sent into every mailbox in the country spring of 1986. And how do you think it got there, Reagen just gave it up willingly ? We have done a lot of research. What is in the article are "secrets", historical secret - that are only being allow to come to surface in: this millennium , not the last. And you do not live in the last millennium, or do you ? Again is it because it does not meet someone's approval of what knowledge the world should have -- or to take away something that has a possible point it should remain. I never have consided historical facts to be nonsense. Wouldn't you really like to know who killed JFK ? Or a article on that revelation with names and places would be nonsense too. Please do not take this personal or let the hairs stand up on the back of anyone's neck. And when listening to the audio cited in the article, the "wicked page", since when is what someone has said by their own verbal voice (especially a press rep of this proportion) become nonsense again verses a fact of happening and when credibilty in human beings are the overall question. Maybe there is something to be learned from the facts, dates, and places in the article. Maybe something to be learned by many around the world. Oh I guess this response of opinion would be considered still just a "rant" by the commenters because it is not in agreement with the community opinions and is responding. Or just that it is too long to read and take serious. We know many hard working people who like to read - even simply lay people. And take the time to do it. If the story -the article in question- had no merit someone would have just posted it and gone away. Not caring whether it remained or not. Or worse yet - just have it again posted by others - not spammed - but reposted and reposted again and again by people who look to see it remain. Of course this response may be too long for some to read. Again just bushed off as a rant. I wonder how many of the commenters actually went and researched the what was cited in the article before making comment. If they did then they would be able to tell us what the depth of obligations were or what the "I am a Fraud" statement on the Wicked page means in the value of America. Or how an issue can effect millions overall. Unless we have no value. Or socially connected human beings or human events have no value. Or the told sharing of mystery in life has no valuse. IF that is the case then it should be deleted. And to prove the point - others can paste and post the same article. As they would posted it from all over the country. I would not want to have to think this (what some consider honored) community is so narrow in mind that is discounts so many others in the world who see beyond the horizons of a backyard. And since it, the article, is about two known controversial figures - even if seen (by some) as (only) underground figures or under current figures - one would question how events that include Jimmy Swaggart and media giants like SMG can be seen as history non notable - or even underground for that matter. Like I said if the issue was title of article then maybe it should read "Matter of History" - "TheWordofGod.com" "The Travels of." To consider "The Word of God" itself in Book of Revelation and in other written works have been serious business to billions of people for thousands of years. Maybe thousands of years is as we can quickly bush it off as nonnotable too. There are a number of reasons to argue the article should remain -- intellectual reasons also -- but none of them are as short as the one line opinions as those stated (posted) by the "community" above. Not wanting to take up too much of your time because others may enjoy the read, a matter of History is an unencylopedic entry to any page of daily life. Or is it ? And I would argue the article remain. Even if refined. Or then just delete and others can just as easily enter it again and again until this community does see its true merit or does the research to see the merit in full. I worked on this project with others and do not hide behind the cloak of what may be seen as the cloak of others. Anytime anyone wants to question the facts or merit of the actual article -- unless they are merely protecting some political agenda as well as motive - then I can be reached. As others too will raise there voice if it need to be heard over time, which we all have years of. The Researcher 2. MsBarbaraQin@yahoo.com Well, anyway, thanks for listening even if you dismiss this response as a rant. As for a handy excuse. Could have just left it -this discussion - unresponsed to and simply as it was said - reposted the article upon delete. We could go back to first grade and just read "Jack and Jill." That would resolve everything. Or would it ? Researcher2

• remain - we could just call the article "Puzzle Pieces" and leave it alone.

Response - of course the author deleted it. One of the authors anyway. Well, not quite deleted - edited most of the body. Would not want anyone unhappy. Would have deleted all but the notice said do not leave "blank", quote: "please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." If it was unwanted there, why put it back ? Since according to the uhumm experts it is so "unsavagable." But I see you put it back. So thanks anyway. Funny. (if for nothing else it has made for brisk discussion. As it was said before. Seems to have gotten blood moving.) Maybe there is what LIFE intended ... and that is why it wound up there in the first place. Something in The Word - destiny. Ironic. Maybe those here who created the Universe can say otherwise. Of course. But you'd have to be able to read first.  : ) "funny." Strange funny. Not laughing funny. Anyway thanks for putting it back. Looks better there than not. I'll have to tell "him" what is happening later in the day. Sure it will be appreciated. Also funny said "unintelligible." People in the real world (outside of this one) call it "intense" amongst other heavier things. Should we show "input" email received from Canada or somewhere on the other side of the world. Not necessary. The China Press link shows something like that about half way down where the pictures start. We have plenty. Mostly bigtime positive. People don't like people who do bad or fake things to good people. Especially with legs not crossed (as Anne would say). Many have found it clearly intelligible. What do you think, this is the only place it appears ? It is not just on the web you know. Can't be that full of yourself now can you. "Intelligible." Not my opinion. Others have their own mind. We think it is even more. Nice discussion. Does look pretty good being back there in full body, doesn't it -- And it is only day 1 or 2 ? Very interesting. Researcher2

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

{{subst:void|1=}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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, don't move and don't merge. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

This has been submitted before, however it was never resolved whether we should keep and merge. I am resubmitting this, and this time I am asking whether it should also be merged. Please comment in the relevant sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/18 October 2005.

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2004-12-03.

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-25. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2005-02-25.

Rename

• Let's be honest. These are not arguments against Wikipedia. They are arguments for changing the policies of Wikipedia to give administrators more power. The article should be renamed to reflect its content. --Peter McConaughey 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as is

• Keep. It's an important entry of reference that people not convinced of the Wiki idea (especially thos used to traditional encyclopedia usage) can be pointed to. martin 8 December 2005
• Keep. Should be an independent subject.. KrisR 4 December 2005
• Keep. It's too large to fit nicely within the main Wikipedia article. -- Saikiri~ 02:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is a very valuable resource, and a fascinating social experiement, but many, if not most of these points are right-on. The only argument I could see for not keeping this is that it is POV, but that would be somewhat disingenuous. --RoySmith 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't need merging - wouldn't look good jammed into the main WP article. --Loopy 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as useful resource. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does anyone have an actual reason to delete or merge this? Seems kind of strange to have a VfD without lodging a single formal complaint with the article as-is. -Silence 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has become a case study in all kinds of debates about knowledge and democracy. This page documents some of that. (Comment: If this was intended as just another VfD/AfD I think you'd be right. I guess this is intended to settle the keep vs. merge question... but I agree, it feels like this has been done and done.) rodii 03:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Too large to merge anywhere. Creating sub-articles is a natural part of the growth of an article, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. BrianSmithson 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we need to determine whether enough people believe it should be merged or not. That's the main reason for this AfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't (or should'nt) need an AFD to establish consensus for or against a merge, though. El_C 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it is beautifully well written, well resourced, and neutral. A wonderful article. It is important to keep it because it reflects transparency of Wikipedia. I think that there should be more of this kind of article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A useful collection of information, too big to merge with main article. Jasmol 04:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- Per Zordrac. Reyk 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. El_C 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthwhile article, located correctly. Herostratus 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the article is well written and accurately portrays the flaws and eventual undoing of this encyclopedia. --Agamemnon2 08:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an important subject, as much as any other current event. --QubitOtaku 10:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I don't understand why it's up for AFD again seeing as it's been kept the previous times. Wikipedia has to include the bad with the good and while I disagree with Agamemnon2's statement about "eventual undoing" I think it's articles like this that make Wikipedia worthwhile. I don't recall seeing an article in Britannica devoted to people who don't like it. Just as long as this article retains NPOV, I'm all for it, even if I don't always agree with it. In fact, deleting this article would play into the hands of some of the critics who accuse Wikipedia of censoring any criticism about it. 23skidoo 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. To be objective and unbiased, me do need some critics. However, the article could needs some edit, because i think it is slightly POV
• Keep as is The Land 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gtabary 17:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is highly notable these days, and thus fair game for criticism; it also shouldn't put itself in the position of appearing to censor its critics. *Dan T.* 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Too big to merge, and the last thing anyone would want to do is justify the complaining of people like these. Until Wikipedia's perfect, it'll have its critics, and that information is welcome as long as its encyclopedic. karmafist 18:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with karmafist. I tried to ask them for some constructive criticism, but they have none. Apparently I was "trolling" using the power of my "hive mind" (and other such personal attacks). With critics like that, we're actually in a pretty good position (they just look - and they are! - unreasonable). For instance, they criticise us for being in the top 10 of clusty.com (Daniel Brandt's recommended search engine) - surely they should be criticising the search engine and not us? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Too big to merge, and I don't buy the argument that "Criticism of X" articles are automatically more POV than any of the very POV articles we wouldn't dream of deleting or merging, like those of major religions or heads of state -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any organization should have a plan to derive benefit by listening to criticism. There should be a link to Criticism of Wikipedia in the toolbox in order to make it easy for users to provide criticism. --JWSchmidt 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It is important that WP acknowledges its critics. --rogerd 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though when I say "as is", I don't mean the article as it is at this instant. In particular, the recent removal of the counters to some of this criticism strikes me as an effort to turn the article into a POV attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tlogmer 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Olorin28 03:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an important hubris-deflator for those like myself who try to believe that nothing is ever wrong on Wikipedia (I don't mean that in a negative way, I'm just saying I'm prone to believing everything I read on Wikipedia without acknowledging the possibility that someone has discreetly edited a number somewhere. I RC patrol, I know what kinds of stupid crap people do!) Mo0[talk] 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As AOLers used to be notorious for saying: me too! --Modemac 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this useful material were merged into the Wikipedia article, that article would simply expand too fast for comfort. This is clearly material that belongs in its own article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep by now. Ashibaka tock 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! Its healthy for organizations allow for criticism - allowing this to stand will also blunt the negative impact if its removed. But one word of caution, the content on this article should never dissolve into a personal gripe section. My greatest fear is that future "contributors" could use the space to air their personal gripes, an Wikipedia has a mechanism for dealing with that. Stu 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or speedy keep given the general consensus here. Hall Monitor 18:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Matt Crypto 21:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep It troubles me that some Wikipedians are unable to tolerate criticisms. This page is a valuable resource that provides alternative views of Wikipedia and can help improve the project. --SamOdio 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What wont kill us will only make us stronger. We are the BORG Larsinio 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We should strive to address these criticisms, not silence them. Silensor 19:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds like a noteworthy page that we should pay attention to. --Thephotoman 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those unfamiliar with WP should stumble across this early in their wanderings through it. BYT 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and delist. If someone doesn't within the next 24 hours, I will. —RaD Man (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not do this, and let it run its course. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete entirely

• Delete Somebody can make a user who does NOTHING BUT CRITICISE, and this could be their user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah2 (talk • contribs)

Redirect (please list where)

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. Thgis would make far more sense in the project namespace than in article space. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a certainly logic to what Grutness says, and from a purely logical point of view, I think he's right. On the other hand, hiding critisism of oneself out of the public view is the Wrong Thing to do. --RoySmith 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Um. Are you suggesting that our only real reason for wanting to keep the article as-is is to stave off being criticized by criticizing ourselves first, and that it's only by being (at least to some extent) illogical and irrational, only by treating this article preferentially and being biased enough to deal differently with this article than we would with any other article, that we can possibly argue for this article's existence? That's nonsense, I'd argue the same for any Criticism article about a major subject that has had a large number of significant criticisms. We already have a page called Wikipedia:Criticisms, which is a page for the purpose of Wikipedia editors to read over, discuss, and try to address relevant critiques of Wikipedia. The purpose of this article, on the other hand, is for our readers. Many people will no doubt be interested and fascinated to see some of the main criticisms of Wikipedia (and the significant responses)—all the more so, yes, because the page happens to be on Wikipedia, but even if it wasn't, the topic's significant enough that we shouldn't attack such a well-written article. We should do the same thing we do with any other article: try to improve it, fix its biases, bring it up to shape. Endless VfDs don't improve the article, they just lead to us spending more time arguing back and forth, back and forth, then actually working on the article itself (which is, in fact, the case with this article, from what I can see). -Silence 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. I agree with grutness, it would make more sense to have that in the Wikipedia: name sapce --Chemturion 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

On the theory that abuses of WP, and the resultant criticisms, are not prominent or newsworthy? I have to disagree. The Siegenthaler thing was on the front page of the New York Times Week in Review section this week, quite a promiment placement. Clearly, this should be front and center, not something for insiders. It is simply too big to pour into Wikipedia. Seems to me like the consensus here is dead-on. BYT 20:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect (please list where)

• Merge to the Wikipedia article. In The Flesh? 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the Wikipedia article. Smerk
  • Incidentally, as a side-note to the vote, would you guys (a) support the merging of Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox into Mozilla Firefox, Criticisms of Internet Explorer into Internet Explorer (and possibly other articles, like Common criticisms of Microsoft into Microsoft or even Criticisms of communism into Communism), (b) support the merging of this article but not those, because Wikipedia criticism is less noteworthy than that of Mozilla Firefox, etc., or (c) none of the above. Just interested in getting a broader perspective on what this vote would entail for Wikipedia's requirements to be a distinct article; that way its results might be useful for future decisions. -Silence 04:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't. The Internet Explorer criticisms was done to specifically keep the size of the article down to a minimum. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And criticism of Wikipedia wasn't? Wikipedia is 21 pages long, whereas Internet Explorer is just over 10 pages long, and the Criticism page for the latter is only 2-3 pages longer than the one for the former. Thanks for the explanation, though. -Silence 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • You are talking cross-purposes with me. I don't believe that the Criticism of Wikipedia article should be merged into the Wikipedia article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • To be fair, criticism of Wikipedia IS vastly less important than criticisms of Communism, Microsoft and Internet Explorer, and I'm pretty sure Firefox has it beat in overall importance too. No need to raise ourselves on a pedestal here. --Agamemnon2 08:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I would agree that criciticms of Wikipedia is less important than all those things, however this does not mean that criticisms of Wikipedia are not important. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Merging is the wrong answer. Making the scope of the article neutral is the right answer. And, indeed, Criticisms of communism is an example of the sort of perennial neutrality dispute that results from "Criticism of X" articles with a non-neutral scope. See below. Uncle G 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clean Up and Merge into Wikipedia --Arm 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm sick of seeing this thing, frankly. I disagree with this and all other pages titled Criticism of X; I would much rather like to see Evaluations of X or perhaps Critical evaluations of X. Doesn't anybody wonder why we don't have Praise of X or Positive opinions on X articles? Articles like these are ways to exile negative POVs to places where they can do less damage. That has some value, but it's still a poor compromise of our NPOV policy. Opposing viewpoints should be integrated, not separated. These articles attract huge amounts of unverifiable statements and irrelevant fluff as a result of their unquestioning titles.
  That said, I suppose this is just an issue of practicality that is not going to resolve any time soon. Until and if I can finally find the strength to rewrite this thing into Evaluations of Wikipedia and hope it's so great that nobody wants to undo it, I'll leave it alone. JRM · Talk 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM · Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• AFD is not the place for solving the problem with this article, since doing so doesn't involve deletion at all.

  See the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content_forking#.22Criticism.28s.29_of_....22.

  JRM is exactly right. "Criticism of X" pages are inherently non-neutral, since they only present one side of a debate, contrary to our policy. They are a short route to perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism all sport neutrality disputes, all because either the scope of the article implies that the only discussion of the subject that exists is negative or the scope of the article inherently advocates the negative point of view. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, the way to resolve this problem is to have a single article that encompasses the entire debate, but this is not a matter for AFD, since deletion is not required in order to achieve this. Just rename or merge the article to a neutral title and expand its scope.

  This should have been discussed on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia as a simple renaming/merger and refactoring proposal and taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment if there wasn't enough input. Uncle G 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that last remark. Which is why I in fact have done this once already. Neither the talk page nor an RFC had any effect, and I strongly suspect nothing short of actually going ahead with the rewrite will. But that's only going to stick if you produce a brilliant article from the start, since otherwise people are going to say you're "acting unilaterally" and "against consensus", which in this case just means you're violating the status quo, and people don't like that. It's pretty hopeless, really. JRM · Talk 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that "criticism of..." pages are inherently non-neutral. The way to make them neutral, obviously, is to list all the noteworthy criticisms (citing them all), and then to list noteworthy rebuttals to all of those criticisms where they exist (citing them all), and counter-rebuttals if those are noteworthy, etc. "Criticism of..." articles aren't just a place for criticism, they're a place about criticism—the history of criticism of communism, for example, or Christianity, would belong in those articles, not just the criticism itself. The fact that an article is too POVed currently does not mean that the topic is inherently POVed. In this case, all it means is that it's unusually difficult to get the article NPOV—though far from impossible, since many of the "Criticism of..." articles (including this one) don't have NPOV stickers on them. Separating Criticism into its own article is only a "POV fork" if (1) no criticism is mentioned as well on the article's main page, even where appropriate, and (2) no responses to criticism are allowed on the criticism page. Those two requirements may not be satisfied quite yet for some of the pages, but they certainly can be in the future. -Silence 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice idea in theory (and I do not believe in "inherently non-neutral" articles either), but the point-counterpoint style is not a very good instance of NPOV either. I am not convinced that criticism of any topic (as opposed to critical evaluations, which is not quite the same thing) should be separated, when endorsement, encouragement or neutral reactions never get split off. In most cases the criticism of a topic is not interesting in and of itself, but in context of the topic. The present structure encourages articles of the form "Topic. X, Y and Z. Oh, but Criticism of Topic." "Criticism of Topic. X is bogus, Y is bogus, Z is bogus." It should be "Topic. X, but maybe X is bogus. Y, but maybe Y is bogus. Z, but maybe Z is bogus." The individual parts can get separate articles again, but it should be unusual and undesirable for (unqualified) criticism to be a topic in and of itself. It makes things unnecessarily hard and obscures the broad picture. It's an easy way to split up an article, but I'd argue it's a suboptimal one. JRM · Talk 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of the articles caught up in previous edit wars -- especially religious articles -- seemed to settle down after a "Criticism of..." section was created. (Examples: Criticism of Prem Rawat, Scientology controversy.) The reasoning here seemed to satisfy both the proponents and opponents of the "critics" of these groups. Those who wanted to place negative information about the groups were generally content that they were able to keep their information and links in the spotlight, with prominent links to their article on the main page; meanwhile, supporters of the groups in question were largely free to add their own information to the main page while letting the critics have their say in the "criticism" article. --Modemac 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this will help stop edit wars for controversial topics. It is a compromise, a truce of sorts, a way to prevent you from having to face the harsh and complex demands of NPOV. Splitting up an article in an unbiased/pro part and a contra part is not neutral. Our job is not to keep editors con\tent, but to provide an integral story to our readers. Basically, NPOV is hard, tough noogies. Why not Criticism of George W. Bush? Sure would cool some edit wars. No. That's Wikinfo's modus operandi, not ours. By doing this we give up, saying "maybe NPOV is just impossible/not worth it".

And besides—we're talking Wikipedia here, not religion. Do we really think Wikipedia editors will be unable to exercise restraint when faced with criticism of "their" encyclopedia? I value us a little higher than that, really. JRM · Talk 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Like in religion, some will be able to exercise restraint and others will not. I'll have you know I'm a "religious" person. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And we have plenty of Bush supporters too, I wager. My comment was not directed at particular groups or individuals. I trust my implication that some topics will attract more and more heated conflicts than others is not challenged. Wikipedia is special because it's personal too all of us, and because it is, we should respect NPOV even more than for other topics if we want any hope of looking good. JRM · Talk 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

True, just wanted to point this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 7 December 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.

{{subst:void|1=}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Garbage Compactor 3263827

Subtrivial Star Wars article. Has absolutely no potential for expansion or merging with other artices. Creating a redirect anywhere I feel would be pointless. Only inbound link is a redirect for 3263827, the compactor's number. Saberwyn 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly the most notable garbage compactor in the universe, potential to expand to describe indigenous fauna. Kappa 00:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no potential to expand. In the book, the "indigenous fauna" are described no more specifically than "it", "something", and "whatever". In the film, they are never shown on-screen. Any such expansion would be content created from thin air, which we are not in the business of publishing. Uncle G 01:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I just read in the Star Wars Encyclopedia that dianoga live there. Surely the Star Wars experts should weigh in on this.—Gaff ^talk 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no such creature mentioned in either book or film. And that encyclopaedia article, like this one, gives a unit number that is not in either the book or the film script. One doesn't need to be a Star Wars expert in order to read the few pages of the book necessary to verify this. I've given the page number. ☺ Uncle G 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • This number, however is present in the film; it seems like it might have been an improvisation (either by Hamill or Lucas). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It is also present on the recorded LP from back in the day. The film script and the book cannot be taken as strict Star Wars canon. But anyway, still seems like insignificant trivia not worth the time of debate on AfD. I agree with merging it to either Death Star or Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The dianoga [1] in this compactor is Star Wars canon, but mentioning it would only add a sentence or so to the article. -LtNOWIS 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Death Star, in spite of cute comment from Kappa. Jkelly 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, unless expanded as kappa suggested. And btw, there are much more notable garbage compactors known for those who read books. mikka (t) 01:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star. No one would look up the redirect, but it wouldn't do any harm, either. CanadianCaesar 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just for completeness, I note that this is not the number of the garbage compactor that is given on page 153 of the book. Nor is it the number given in the various on-line copies of the 1975-08-01 edition of the film script. Uncle G 01:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. This article has a low chance of being expanded to anything other than a stub. It was already well-covered in the article at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and, being the minor detail that it is, does not need an article "just becuase it is Star Wars". And... this is coming from a fanboy. Take it to the Star Wars wiki. Well, I guess it's probably there already anyway, and can't be expanded, as I said above The Wookieepedian 01:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• M/e/r/g/e with Death Star per genius mergists above.  BD2412 ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, can the Wookieepedian's vote count triple? Anyway, delete as subtrivial cruft. (That said, the closing admin may take this as a merge vote if it helps establish consensus.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Contrary to Wookiepedian, there is currently no mention of this Compactor anywhere in the article. --Anetode 04:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star.  freshgavin^TALK   05:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• possibly the most notable garbage compactor in the universe Oh, good Lord, Kappa's championing of the subtrivial may have reached its ultimate expression. Delete, period, full stop. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. MCB 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Psychonaut 08:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The most notable garbage compactor in the universe is a classic line, however. Dottore So 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only useful for recycling fancruft. Sandstein 14:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• What the--?! Delete subtrivial compactorcruft without merging. The redirect should go too. flowersofnight 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Only joking. Delete, 'potential to expand to describe indigenous fauna' notwithstanding. Proto t c 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Why am i not surprised there's an article here? Anyway delete, beyond subtrivial. -R. fiend 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• It might be worth a mention in the Death Star article but there's not much information to merge. Delete I guess. --Optichan 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star. - Falerin 17:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As crufty as crufty can be. KeithD (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There's always a cruftier fish
    • Wow! THAT is the crufiest—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per above arguments. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star. This is the kind of trivial silliness that hard-core Star Wars fans like to know; my brother, for instance, loves stuff like this. Not deserving of its own article, though. Do not under any circumstances interpret this vote as a keep.--Scimitar ^parley 21:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with death star. Cool3 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the Lucascruft, perhaps to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which it asserts to be featured in. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Death Star. As above not a keep vote in any way. Marskell 10:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, but Kappa's vote should be framed and put on a wall somewhere. the wub "?!" 16:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ladies and Gentlemen, a new and seemingly obvious precedent has been made -- Garbage Compactors are not notable. This one definately goes into the "Kappa's greatest hits" compilation though...Karmafist 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dianoga are large garbage parasites resembling squid, capable of growing up to 10m in length and are also called garbage squid. They originated on planet Vodran, but can now be found anywhere trash and sewage are, living off of any present organic matter. They are primarily scavengers, and only pose a threat when starving.

• Delete an article much more likely to get us laughed at than respected. Denni☯ 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Death Star. Penelope D 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Death Star. -LtNOWIS 01:43, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Lunar Buchanan

Seems to be the author of a nonnotable fanfiction. Fanficton title gets 80 google hits, author gets 16. One incoming link, from Anti-Harry Potter community Creidieki 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Jkelly 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let it stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.191.68 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Anetode 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Alex.tan 09:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Falerin 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable --Amxitsa 22:13, 18 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Alkhemi

del nonnotable, nonverifiable (i.e., promo). A whooping 8 google hits excluding wikipedia & mirrors. mikka (t) 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Alchemy. Jkelly 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• The list of hyperlinks on Talk:Alkhemi appeared to be a promising start for checking to see whether this company satisfied the WP:CORP criteria ... until I looked at the linked pages and found that not only did they give no information whatsoever about this company, over half of them didn't even mention the company at all. Further research turns up nothing about this company that isn't directly from the company web site or from its pseudonymous purported founder and CEO. Not only are the WP:CORP notability criteria not satisfied, the company is barely even verifiable. Indeed, the article says this outright ("alkhemi [...] is [...] relatively unknown outside it's [sic] network of clients"). There's no evidence that this company isn't simply a fiction created by one man, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted; let alone evidence that this company is considered notable by other people. Delete. Uncle G 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thomas1917's modifications to the article mentioned below have not addressed any of the above points, and have provided none of the evidence that is required. The hyperlinks supplied below purportedly for verification are the very ones from the talk page, that provide no information about the company or that even don't mention it at all, that I mention above. Uncle G 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G --Anetode 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, non-notable. Alex.tan 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• From the article text: "alkhemi does not publicise it’s work and is therefore relatively unknown outside it’s network of clients"; "alkhemi does not generally disclose or discuss in public its historical or current portfolio of assignments". Please give me a reason to believe that I would want to read an article about alkhemi -- otherwise, I can't help but vote Speedy Delete. -- llywrch 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe the work to be very notable; from Copenhagen and Arhus (I am Danish myself) I know of the work to be ‘real’ so I am personally shocked to be in such a discussion. I have decided to follow my instinct and have completely rewritten the page, which will partly meet the objections lodged here but makes clearer why the page should be ‘in’ Wikipedia – others may revert my edits so please click on history! I made some comments in the discussion page previously. 'I strongly urge a re-read and invite ‘confreres’ in a constructive spirit for suggestions for WHERE this can now be placed'. In its professional circles alkhemi is considered a pioneer as it prepared the first ever integrated cultural plan for a capital city; also, cultural policy, planning and strategy nowadays is a blossoming field and it should not be only civil servants or technocrats who should know what work/actions are taking place. YOU may not wish to read about the work – but for others it is significant. I was able to have an enlightening and inspiring time reading Wikipedia guidelines. I can see that the subject matter is trapped between two stools (is this the right expression?) and that by the criteria of WP:CORP this article likely slips into the cracks. I recognise that the article could be in another category and maybe merged/moved – to what? Regards, Thomas Thomas1917 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The two mjor criteria for wikipedia inclusion are wikipedia:Verifiability and wikipedia:No original research (and of course, notability, i.e., why would people want to read the article). However well you rewrite the article, there will be no reason to believe what you say. No reputable third-party references - no artcile. mikka (t) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after re-reading the article: subject matter not notable, sounds like advertising. It's not only about verifiability and no-original-research, it's also just the plain question whether the subject matters, and this does not - it sounds really like advertising. Peter S. 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Attempting to pass off a single company as a "business practice." Just slick self-promotion. Marskell 10:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a fair point by Peter and Mika about why people would want to read the article! I disagree because there are many people who have been impacted by the work and information like this would be consulted if those interested could find it. At this point it is a shame that maybe people with expertise or interest in cultural management are not going to contribute to the discussion as I am not sure it would be ‘right’ to eliminate the page. I realise colleagues have not been able to see links for verifiability from reputable third-parties, so here are they. www.minority-report.dk www.exart.dk www.lld.dk, molodiez.org, www.nkdale.no. alkhemi/aladin’s work in creating the cultural strategy for London can be verified here; these links are from the government. www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk I also realise it is definitely in the ‘wrong’ section as many comments question whether alkhemi conforms to Wiki business criteria for inclusion. Thomas Thomas1917 10:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Interested parties may also wish to look at aladin, an article concerning the founder of this company. (No comment is implied about the relevancy of this page, but the aladin article has been extensively (and very competently) rewritten and still sounds like a puff peice.) It may throw light upon this page. Eaglizard 14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading aladin, I'm puzzled: are you implying that this article is a hoax, or that alkhemi was aladin's business before he decided to become an entertainer? -- llywrch 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. From this article (alkhemi): "Its standing in these particular fields is related to the successes its current leading light aladin had as a prime mover in London government between 2000-2004...". It's the same guy / company. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very good point. I looks like Aladin is not notable neither: His credits are: Rarely performs, had some job for the city of London, is in a book that titled "the book of cool". The article, like Alkhemi, has probably been set up to gain exposure through wikipedia. I would definitely support a delete vote on that one as well. By the way: is there a way to prevent vote-stuffing by a determined individual who just creates a big mass of accounts? Because in those discussions I had, it felt like the author of those two articles is just crazy enough to even do that. Just a feeling. Peter S. 23:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, the only way to 'prevent' it is to pay attention to who votes, and what their edit history has been. The Admins apparently do a pretty fair job of it, too. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can see that it was best for no page by this title; these discussions are problematic. It is of parochial interest (to Wikipedia enthusiasts) whether ‘alkhemi’ is listed. Of wider concern is the nature of comments, which border on the defamatory or libellous. But I am sure ‘alkhemi’ will persist for longer than the exchanges here! The knowledge of its work may not impinge this, online context but resonates in the ‘real’ world and last year in 2004 I was fortunate, even privileged, to view some of it in Arhus. I join with Thomas in wishing that the page is ‘kept’ while not endorsing some of the views expressed hereDelarouism 12:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• On reviewing the various discussions I greatly regret having contributed. This page should be deleted immediately. It’s existence is giving rise to ‘ad hominem’ and uncalled for comments and is serving to give unwarranted importance to those making these. Delarouism 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the spirit of your concerns, but if we deleted every page that gave rise to ad hominem attacks we wouldn't have very many left! Hell, would we have any? lol Eaglizard 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If the interested person instead of being paranoid addressed the major concerns expressed here, the article would live happily ever after. Acting offended means there is nothing more to do to defend the article. mikka (t) 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom & agree with Uncle G review of links asserting notability. If such a notable corporation, why no mention in business press, etc. Maybe a startup company that will get an article eventually, but looks nn. at this point.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just some quick points. It seems there is a need for a new page about cultural strategy or cultural planning and then these additional organisations can be noted: Charles Landry and http://www.comedia.org.uk/ , Mik Flood and Strategies for Art and Space and also Richard Crossland at http://www.ablconsulting.com . alkhemi is known very well to all of these and its principal of course ‘inaugurated’ the first ever integrated capital city cultural plan/strategy so it would easily be ‘fitted in’ in this context. Worldwide British experts are the leaders in this field as the arts and culture portfolio has been at cabinet level for a long time in their country. Although akhemi does not have the apparent corporate infrastructure of its colleagues it is unique and highly reputable in the field. Which is why the Nordic governments constantly invite its intervention and why in Denmark we know of it Delarouism 12:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, be bold - go ahead and write a small article. Account for all sides, don't dwell on the players or make it sound like an ad, but focus on the concept and why cultural strategy / cultural planning has done a difference to a lot of people. If it's an important subject, it might very well become a good article. If not, the wikipedians will give some small hints :-) Keep your head up, if you have some information to share that is truly interesting to lots of people, please go ahead and try it out. Cheers! Peter S. 22:44, 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 Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Adoration (band)

Article doesn't establish notability, Allmusic hasn't heard of them, can't get any worthwhile Google hits for them. -- Captain Disdain 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete not only does the article utterly fail to establish notability, the fact that the author removed the AfD notice just screams that this thing needs to go. CanadianCaesar 01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed it twice, in fact. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again, as the second time around he replaced the AfD notice with "FUCK YOU DONT DELETE MY SHIT WHILE IM WORKIN ON MAKING IT GOOD." Hey, buddy, if you're reading this -- the AfD notice won't affect your work on it; if you turn it into a good article about a notable band, it will not get deleted, and I (and, I presume, Caesar over there) will be glad to change our votes. If, on the other hand, it's a non-notable band (see WP:Music for guidelines about that), you're probably wasting your time. In any case, if you keep deleting the AfD notice, you'll only hurt your chances and end up being banned in the process. There's no point in that. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And, to top it off, he just edited this page to change our votes. Guess he really doesn't want to edit Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Good luck with the vandal. --Anetode 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- As per nomination. Ben D. 06:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need a policy for bands, this is not myspace. --JJay 11:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a policy/criteria: WP:MUSIC, which Adoration does not meet.--Isotope23 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 14:35, 18 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 userfied. Jkelly 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl M. Schwartz

Vanity, makes no claims as to notability of subject of article or his unpublished manuscripts. Wikiacc (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I userfied. Jkelly 01:13, 18 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 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

University Park Creek

Non-notable (almost non-place) of purely local interest. It has almost no content other than there are some culverts and storm drains somewhere. RJFJR 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-encyclopedic. If it actually exists, a short encyclopedic mention in the town's article is enough.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -feydey 12:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Falerin 17:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:04, 20 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 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg Frampton

While sad, he is just one of the thousands of people to die in the war on terror and Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Kjkolb 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete respectfully.  freshgavin^TALK   05:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gently, Wikipedia is not a memorial. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sad but not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:26, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mina's

My speedy got pulled by the author so I'm nominating it on AFd. Mina's makes "lackluster but inexpensive pizza" and may be popular with the kids at Stonehill college. Does that make it notable? Because there are a lot of pizza shops worldwide. JJay 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maybe we need a "lackluster but inexpensive" restaurant list. --JJay 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone provides evidence that Mina's pizza place is world famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No need for it to be world famous, but at least well-known on a national level wouldn't hurt. - 131.211.51.34 09:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I even doubt its well known townwide --JAranda | watz sup 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See also Kyle Mina. Flowerparty■ 02:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- As per nomination, although I could go for a lackluster and inexpensive sandwich at the moment. Ben D. 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. Alex.tan 09:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn pizza shop WP:NOT an ad --JAranda | watz sup 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Offhand I can think of a maximum of two pizza shops in the Boston area that might qualify as notable enough for Wikipedia (Santarpio's and Caffe Avventura), and Caffe A doesn't exist anymore. Haikupoet 00:11, 19 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 no consensus (6 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge, 1 redirect, discounting sockpuppets and IPs). Robert 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

David Even Pedley

This person is of low noterity and is being used to push DOM Davidpdx 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note:If this is deleted, the redirect (which is empty) should be deleted as well Evan David Pedley)

• Delete not notable. The correctly spelled name gets less than 300 hits: [2] and no google news hits [3]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I stand corrected. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable: If you drop the middle name, you get 139,000 hits, and most people that have middle names, rarely use those. The Wikipedia rules for keeping an article about an individual are only that they have been written about in two major publications, if I remember, and in this case this man has been not only in countless news articles around the world for many decades, even this year, almost two decades after his death, he has been talked and picture shown on national and international TV programmes, such as CBS 60 Minutes II. However, I admit that the article needs more work, and just pieced that together to get the article started in earnest. I don't know how an article about Pedley in any way pushes the DOM. Johnski 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Johnski. "used to push DOM"? POV error exists only if permitted by editors. Put an NPOV tag on the articles or sections you dispute, or edit them to fix them. POV errors don't make a subject a less valid topic for an encyclopedia, although they clearly reduce the quality of the articles they exist in. Unfocused 03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the article, though I will say that in my opinion it is pretty bad form to post such an obviously POV cut and paste job in lieu of writing an NPOV article. I removed all the information about Ben David... this isn't his article... as well as some of the unimportant biographical details about marriages, etc. I'm going to tag this with "disputed facts" as soon as I can find the tags, because some of the information I have not been able to independantly verify yet.--Isotope23 12:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should also mention that his name is spelled wrong ("EVEN" should be "EVAN" per all accounts). When I get a chance I'll add a section on pseudonyms... and the fact that he seems to have alternated between Evan David Pedley and David Evan Pedley. I'll see if I can find independant verification of what the guys real name is.--Isotope23 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete-I tend to agree with Gene Poole, this imformation would be better in terms of adding it to the DOM page. Davidpdx 06:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The previous comment about POV error exsisting only if it is permitted by editors is true. However, when you have one person chronically adding this stuff to over 10 diffrent pages, it becomes a bigger problem then just POV on one page. The editor in question has began a campign to add as many articles as he can as well as add DOM to countless pages to POV push and to try to justify DOM. It has gotten to the point of vandalism through adding and editing pages.

The editor in question also has claimed that there are numerous other people that support his version of the Dominion of Melchazidek article and continues to revert the article up to three times a day. If this isn't POV, then what the heck is? Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. This individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek, and is best documented in the context of that article. Note that Johnski is strongly suspected of being a member of Melchizedek, and is quite possibly a member of the Pedley family. --Gene_poole 04:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene, the reason that I started this page about Pedley was to make the page less cluttered that you want to merge it to. Why do you try to insult me by claiming that you suspect me of being connected to a reputed crime family or the ecclesiastical government they are newsworthy of founding? I don't think this is the first time you got facts wrong, and here again, not that it is pertinent to deletion, I can not find any evidence to support your statement that "this individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek". Although Context Magazine says that Pedley founded Melchizedek in the 1950s, in fact, it appears that he died in the 1980's years before Melchizedek became newsworthy because of the allegations against the banks it licensed in the 1990s. Pedley was in the news years before the media began writing about DOM, and apparently the subject of a book called the "Fountain Pen Conspiracy". Just before Melchizedek hit the news, around 1990, the Sacramento, California U.S. Marshall was quoted by the Sacramento Bee as saying that the Pedley case was politically motivated. This to me is pretty interesting stuff. Are you saying that Pedley's translation of the Melchizedek Bible was Pedley's criminal association to DOM, because that is the only association I can find to DOM other than his son following in his footsteps?Johnski 05:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Merging requires the edit history of the source of the merged info to be kept. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid vote. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - 131.211.51.34 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow another bs move by Johnski and unsigned at that. This is from the person who tried to convience me that blogs could be used as a creditable source. Speaking of creditablity, you are shooting yourself in the foot in terms of your creditablity by the statements you make. You purposly lie and misrepresent the rules of Wikipedia to push DOM. In fact, here is the true interpretation of the rule you misquoted:

"An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary."

You continue to make statements in bad faith and revert things without consensus, why should anyone trust you? Davidpdx 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Davidpdx, I'm not asking anyone to trust me, only to write balanced, fair and factual articles. I don't believe that I said that a blog is a credible source only that one can be used in certain circumstances, and I finally admitted that you were correct in regard to the way I used it, which was only in a single case. Look at 131.211.51.34 activity and think about whether that is really me.Johnski 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Anyone who cares should move NPOV content to DOM now. (SEWilco 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete and give a slightly larger mention to the subject on the DOM page. Not notable outside of DOM-related activity. flowersofnight 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability outside DOM. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, with maybe a bit of a smerge. -R. fiend 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person. In the grand scheme of things, Pedley has no notability. Per (SEWilco anyone who is really passionate about this could move content to DOM site, though anything pulled from this article needs serious NPOV edits.--Isotope23 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. A glance at Dominion of Melchizedek proves that Pedley is notable. However, as this article currently reads, he appears to be Yet Another Forgettable Translator of the Bible (tm); only when you get several tedious paragraphs into the quoted text does one find that he is involved in several felony financial crimes. Unless it can be shown that this is a hoax, I think a career felon is notable. -- llywrch 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'll tell you what, I'll do a rewrite when I get a chance today. The more I look at this, I'm on the fence a bit on notability because while Dominion of Melchizedek has slight notability, I'm not so sure that this notability is necessarily confered on the creator. Still, I will rewrite it NPOV (which is sorely lacking right now) and condense it because I don't believe there is much value in hearing about his marriages, etc. The arrests and convictions are all verifiable, though Pedley claims they were cooked up. Even if this article gets deleted, at the end of the day it's still good practice for NPOVing an article.--Isotope23 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite.207.47.122.10 08:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I protest the vote from 207.47.122.10. This is clearly the IP address of Johnski, the main person involved in vandalizing numerous pages on Wikipedia. He is adding several pages in order to push DOM and make it seem legitimate. Each person has one vote on a rfd. It's time Johnski learns to follow the rules. Davidpdx 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep rewrite and watch page. I've nominated a page for incurable PoV myself, but Isotope23 seems to have done a fair fix, if it can be maintained. Septentrionalis 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into DOM article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Lets keep this stuff in one place. Dejvid 18:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rewrite looks good but needs more work. Dejvid, Did you agree with Melchizedek's spiritual war on Serbia, which was launched just before hell fire came from America?SamuelSpade 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: As SamuelSpade is a sockpuppet of Johnski, this vote may be disregarded. KAJ is also a sockpuppet of Johnski.--Gene_poole 23:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Poole, please stop claiming that I am a sockpuppter. KAJ 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Pedley is notable and may be involved in things other than the Dominion of Melchizedek Tom harrison 23:57, 22 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. — JIP | Talk 10:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter_Power

Vanity Bio? 24.208.155.223 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This article appears to be a bio page on a minor blogger; Only a couple of hits on a websearch, nothing consistent or major. This is my first delete nomination, so if I did it wrong, I know it'll get wiped out. - 24.208.155.223 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-Per nomination Davidpdx 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• This can be speedied as a copyvio here[[4]]. --JJay 02:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 06:09, 20 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 keep. There are some voices to merge this, but that discussion I will leave to the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

Island is of low noteablity and is being used for the sole purpose of promoting DOM.Davidpdx 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• A real island with real associated mythology and features (research turns up Gordon MacGregor's notes on tamura and the tupua' Leplafeke). Keep. Uncle G 02:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-per nomination Davidpdx 04:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it is a real island. The DOM stuff on Wikipedia needs some serious work, though. -- Kjkolb 06:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: as it is only a stub and noteworthy from the news media's references to it, etc. I hope that Kjkolb helps with the DOM article.Johnski 06:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand of island of some notability as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I did a quick rewrite. Not really all that much you can say about an unihabited island that is "claimed" by a fraudulent micronation... I did add the association to the parent island of Rotuma though.--Isotope23 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• KeepLogophile 15:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A named island seems a straight forward keep. Marskell 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merging with Rotuma seems called for; but this does not require AfD. Septentrionalis 16:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove the irrelevant DOM part. Pavel Vozenilek 16:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rotuma as it is a real island but of minor importance Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - and expand with the DOM "claim". --Cactus.man ✍ 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How many quaint little spots with a trivial local legend are there?Dejvid 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not enough material. Myth could be in an article about the lore tellers or where they live, rather than the little rock. (SEWilco 03:31, 25 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. — JIP | Talk 06:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Intense addiction

Man these band articles are just endless. Don't see a speedy so here we go. Intense Addiction looks to be a high-school band (maybe junior high since the average age is 14). They may play clubs in the Youngstown, Ohio area and claim to be working on three albums but have released no recordings. Their "appeal is to a very small and unknown audience". Nothing on google and...oh, they may be on the point of breaking up... JJay 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity.  freshgavin^TALK   05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, vanity, petty internal personal attacks... CLW 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DV8 2XL 20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MapSport

non-noteable and blatant advertizing Vsmith 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Vsmith 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising CanadianCaesar 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. CLW 14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 06:12, 20 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Flecko.net

del nonnotable. 151 unique google hits is way to few for a (quoting) " the greatest website ever". mikka (t) 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, advertising.  freshgavin^TALK   05:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, vanity. Alex.tan 09:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, webvanity and advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn vanity CLW 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 05:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 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 wasDelete Karmafist 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)See this afd's talk page for explanation

Nipple-Touch Mini

A weird and presumably sexual "car game"; the phrase gets no google hits. Nonverifiable. -- Creidieki 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Shame really. Playing this game does not involve inflicting pain on the other player (such as pinching or twisting); I hope it goes far. Flowerparty■ 02:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I recognise that it's a silly premise. Yes, I had a hard time writing the article because it is indeed goofy, and yes, the Google test comes up negative (which is actually the reason I decided to write this article; why hadn't anyone before me?). Please give it a chance, or, if you've heard of it, please vouch for it to keep the article alive. --Dana 02:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delight ... er, I mean Delete.  BD2412 ^talk 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Massachusetts and I play this game all the time, even out of the car/ by myself. It's actually quite fun and addicting. It's totally safe and immature, but appropriate, just like most car games. I play with the rule that if driving with girls, they are hands off unless they do it first, then it's fair game. I'm so glad somebody finally wrote about this, I hope it goes a long way. ---Transit.letum Keep. Down here in Texas, at least in my city, this game is fairly popular, and i introduce new people to the game all the time. It's a very friendly game, and it really brings the car together. It makes the car ride more enjoyable and light-hearted. To delete this entry and deny the masses access to this game would be a crime against humanity. ---Johnny

• delete. And as if anyone needed me to say, transit, johnnyb and dana all only have a single contribution... to this AfD Mmmbeer 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Ugh. I was just about to say that I didn't write those. I do know the first person, though. I asked him to help me out. (Can you look at the IP addresses or something? I don't know Johnny...) Sorry guys. Just trying to keep this afloat... --Dana 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete! I can't beleive I'm seeing this on Wikipedia! My friends and I used to play this all the time (in the suburbs of Chicago) I had no idea it was so wide spread. This game is great, it creates a great bond between the participants (or a release of sexual tension, depending on who you're playing with). Just because Google hasn't picked it up yet doesn't mean that people aren't playing it. ---Molly

• Comment: I'm terribly sorry that my contribution is the same as Transit and Dana, but there's not much else to contribute. It's a game, pure and simple. If you'd like a long and mostly made up essay on the deep philosophy and spirituality surrounding the game, then fine. I'll write one up and e-mail it too you. But honestly, it’s a game, and the only real reason you play car games is to alleviate some of the tediousness of driving, especially long distances. Nipple touch mini, in conjunction with Punch Buggy and Yellow car I win (and The Game where applicable) accomplishes this. There is a severe lack of car games, barring the few you played as a kid, such as the license plate game, or some billboard game, but I honestly feel as though I’ve outgrown those games. I need a game with competition, with several people fighting to get the nipple-touch. It's competitive. Try it, i can almost guarantee you'll love it. NTM is fairly new to my community, probably imported by some college kid on a road trip, but it's a blast. I am honestly astounded that it's so widespread that it's on Wikipedia, it made my day. Even if it is a little too obscure for your tastes, if you leave this up on Wiki, I’m positive that many more people will learn of NTM and fall in love with it's silly, immature charms. After all, isn't this how things grow? Something fun gets posted somewhere. People read it and implement it into their everyday lives, then tells friends. This could become huge, and I think it would be a crying shame to kill it now. After all, it's a lot bigger than either Molly or I thought. Don't stifle a car gaming revolution. ---Johnny
• Delete O.R. as per Johnny the Sockpuppet --Anetode 04:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete despite apparent popularity in sockpuppet community. Very little verifiable evidence that this has achieved any notability as indicated by no Google hits. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, before the clones multiply anymore.  freshgavin^TALK   05:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: My main concern with this article is verifiability. If this game is played by a small number of people, and no written records of it exist, we don't have any way of knowing that the article is correct, or finding errors. That kind of content isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are a lot of places on the internet where you can tell people about something new and try to raise its popularity, but Wikipedia is trying very hard not to be a promoter so much as a recorder.

It can be difficult for us to tell whether something like this is popular. I hadn't personally heard of it, and I couldn't find any google hits. If you can find internet references or other textual references (perhaps they were using a different name), or some other records of its popularity and existence, that would be a major help in keeping the article. Barring that, there may be more specialized internet sites which have more lenient inclusion requirements. -- Creidieki 06:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, puppetfest. MCB 06:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as opposed to punch buggy, this is unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MCB. Sandstein 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I drive a Mini Cooper myself. As "Johnny" points out, people will "read it and implement it into their everyday lives", and I can't live with the responsibility of encouraging such wanton behaviour... CLW 14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable. If we get any more puppets I'll be able to start my own Muppet Show.--Isotope23 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Close to nonsense. Touching nipples is non-sexual? Logophile 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and BJAODN this discussion. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge into Punch Buggy if independent existance can be verified at all... I have not found any evidence anywhere though and I researched it heavily... it does seem to be a good BJAODN entry actually. - Falerin 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I found a Google hit, dated April 2004 here. Since this clearly depends on a couple of fringe pop-culture foundations (the website appears to be related to Howard Stern, & the link refers to The Surreal Life), on one hand I'm not surprised this exists under the radar; on the other hand, I am surprised that, because the stereotype Internet nerd tends to hyperfocus on trivia like this, there aren't a number of Google hits about this odd passtime. Has anyone watched TSL & can verify that the "Nipple-Touch Mini" game was played on this particular episode? If so, then it's a definite keep; if not, then it's either a hoax or clearly not-notable. (And given the attention Wikipedia gets, I'm willing to bet money that in 6 months that this will be a real game unless this article is deleted.) -- llywrch
  • The Google hit Llywrch found does not appear to be about this game; the "mini" referred to is not the Mini automobile, but Verne Troyer, the actor who plays "Mini Me" in the Austin Powers movies. Delete the game as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. You're right: the link above is incorrect (thanks for trying, Llywrch; and why didn't anyone else notice this?). It is not, however, unverifiable. There are several people that have verified its existance both above and below this comment. People from both inside the United States (I'm from New Hampshire) and in the United Kingdom have verified the reality this game or its variants. (Which is a good point; I'll add a section on mini-pinch as outlined by Kilo-Lima below.)
• Comment. Ah ha! Thank you, Llywrch. Even if we get over-ruled, you're really right about everything else. I hope this gets to at least have a chance... Or maybe keeping it afloat on a BJAODN page would help it last long enough to be undeleted... --Dana 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Punch & Judy votes nonwithstanding. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all sock-puppets. Oh, and delete this article. Marskell 10:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Similarly, in the United Kingdom, it is called Mini-pinch: When one person sees a Mini, they pinch the other person. Alternations: Mini-punch. - Kilo-Lima 13:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: what about Mini-Judy? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above.  Grue  16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep oh give me a break, if you want a deletion give an actual reason. the amount of things on wikipedia is rediculous and this article, according to the couple people who have mentioned it, is relevant to them. Just because its not to you doesnt mean anything. so give a reason or dont write delete, all the people who voted to keep have valid reasons and don't cite "sock puppets" repeatedly. So I vote to keep it based on the fact that there now is a google hit, and that it is relevant to multiple users as well as their pools of friends. I also would like to state that the person who started this deletion probably did not read the article, because they think that the game is sexual, when it is stated differently in the article. In short you dont delete something just because you think its stupid, if its well written and relevant then let it slide. --Aaron 16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Aaron, careful not to be too biting with your opinions. I recognize the importance of keeping Wikipedia clean, and I feel that people do an excellent job with it. I do understand the opinions of many of the people that wrote to delete this article. The first user to respond, Creidieki, did read the article and his comment showed me that I needed to be implicit in stating that the game is not sexual (which I did). This user even came back later to support his claims, which is admirable. I also understand why one would think so without playing the game. Since I published this article, I have read up on "sock puppets" and "vanity articles," and now regret asking my friend (transit.letum) to help in our cause. I realize that doing that is against the traditional wiki rules and I didn't mean do start that. Other than that, however, I am not a... sock-puppeteer? This article is real and many people unrelated to me have come to show it. Please take that into consideration, everyone.--Dana 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Just thought it was kind of interesting to point out that two of the "keep" votes are from a deletionist and from and admin. --Dana 17:41, 21 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. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kyle Mina

Borderline speedy. His claim to notability is that he drank 69 beers in a day. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina's. Flowerparty■ 02:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• If he could prove that 69 beer thing, he might be notable. Until then I second with Delete. --JJay 02:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Cleduc 04:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- As per nomination, unless 69 beers is a verifiable record. Ben D. 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, non-notable, non-verifiable. Alex.tan 09:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete! This is true, I was a witness to his 69 beer claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 07:15, October 19, 2005 (UTC) This user created the article
• Kyle is the man I was also there... he started drinking at one in the morning and didnt stop until midnight...and how can you delete a guy that rocks the Vega claw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 07:17, October 19, 2005 (UTC) This user created the article
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• It would be ludacris for anybody to delete this article, this man is an absolute legend at Stonehill College, as a resident I can verify he did this and he belongs in some sort of hall of fame, if not Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 03:09, October 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'm actually 20010918th in line to the British throne. Delete this nonsense. --Madchester 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• It would be a travesty if this page were deleted. This man is a legend here at Stonehill and he rocks the vega calw like no other. Kyle, I'm rooting for ya big guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.12 (talk • contribs) 16:09, October 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Total NN. He's not even on Google, except for when he shows up here. Some glorified frat boy who does not deserve an entry here. Devotchka 01:01, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Andakataham

It seems to be a non-notable newsletter. --Mysidia (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- is as it seems. Cleduc 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete usual vanity/nn. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The newsletter that it links to is a pathetic excuse for humour. Only one edition (from 2003) seems to be around. Tintin 22:29, 20 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Anders dahl monsen

It seems like this artist is not very notable... --Mysidia (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'd tend to agree with you. At least we're not wasting capital letters on him. Cleduc 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - zero Google hits for his "most famous" work suggests a sorry lack of notability CLW 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per 7 hits on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Octopus Dog Man

Nonnotable injoke with no google hits and no incoming links. Creidieki 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Injoke? Ridiculous! A comic character cannot be documented? Pietak 23:00, 18 October 2005

Don't tell me that this article joins the ranks of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_From_Life . Vandalism? Pietak 19:26, 19 October 2005

• Delete not notable, vandalism. Cleduc 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Anetode 04:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Cult underground legend" indeed? Hhmmm... NN. But adding a picture of a random dog to illustrate what the "Dog" part of the name means is cute... CLW 14:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

White Rose Movement

A newly formed band that appears to have released just one single; doesn't meet any notability criterion. Hoary 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read the deletion policy. Keep this article. Grace Note 07:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And non-notability isn't a criterion for deletion either. Yes, I've reread the deletion policy, and I've also read Notability and Music Guidelines. This band doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed there. Now, these are of course "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". I'm one of these editors. Perhaps you aren't. If you aren't, what rules of thumb do you use? Or to put it another way, what's your reason for a "keep" vote? -- Hoary 08:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What's my reason for a "keep" vote? I don't think the article should be deleted. It's verifiable and about a real subject. That's enough to be included in the "sum of all human knowledge" in my books. -- Grace Note.
    • And by the way, don't snidely correct my English. If I meant to write "non-notability" I would have done. -- Grace Note.
  • Comment: Lack of any assertion of notability is already a speedy deletion criterion where people are concerned, so it's only logical to apply it to groups of people (in this case bands). Instead of arguing notability isn't a criterion, it's better to argue why this particular band should be kept based on its own merits. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why exactly you feel justified in haranguing me. I clearly don't agree that it's better to argue the merits of this particular band, because I think all verifiable bands should be included in Wikipedia. I think "notability" means no more, no less than "I do or don't value this subject" and your valuation is meaningless to me if I do not share your system of value (and you cannot expect all of your potential readers to share it), whereas an objective standard, represented by verifiability, is meaningful.--Grace Note.
      • That seems a reasonable enough point of view, but: (i) I disagree with your interpretation of "notability", as for example I don't value (let's say) Paris Hilton but acknowledge that the media do and for this reason (as well perhaps as others) think that she's notable; (ii) there seems no incompatibility between a demand for verifiability and a demand for notability; and (iii) Notability and Music Guidelines are, well, guidelines for decisions about the worthiness of articles on bands -- guidelines that may be wrong (and that can be challenged by you) but that nevertheless exist. -- Hoary 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as, well, non-notable. Dottore So 10:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please give a reason that accords with the deletion policy.--Grace Note.

• Delete - nn (sorry, Grace...) CLW 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Normally, saying that an article should be deleted because it's "non-notable" would elicit a keep vote from me -- but the idea that someone is trying to ride to fame on the coattails of the White Rose Society repulses me. Hate me for being a sentimental hypocrite, but please Delete. -- llywrch 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: names are now so silly, and sensationalism is so crass and pervasive, that while I appreciate your PoV I actually find it slightly refreshing that a band would name itself after an anti-Nazi group. Or anyway it beats "New Order", in my very jaded and perhaps underinformed opinion. -- Hoary 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create a redirect to White Rose to discourage future band vanity. Youngamerican 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 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 Speedy Delete by Jni as nonsense and nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Glen Melendez

A quick check of the Internet completely fails to produce any evidence that Mr. Melendez is the world's most deadly assassin, that "Brother John" trained him in the arts of language, or that he discovered time travel. —Cleared as filed. 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think saying he is “king of the world” qualifies the article as patent nonsense; hence it should be speedy. ♠DanMS 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Marius gheorghe

Non-notable, vanity NymphadoraTonks 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - NymphadoraTonks 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity.  freshgavin^TALK   05:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom CLW 15:04, 18 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. 3 votes (including the nom) is enough. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gocke

Article does not establish who the subject is, to the extent that even his/her given name is unknown. Article is not salvageable. Delete. Cleduc 04:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm pretty sure that this article refers to Rainer Gocke, a requested article. However, it doesn't do any good in its present form. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - even if this is Rainer Gocke, there's no point moving this article to Rainer Gocke in its current state. CLW 15:06, 18 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Blue tit's

NN band, Alexa ranking 1,364,432, 252 hits for band's new name, 16 for old one. Likely vanity. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, they haven't released any singles or albums, have no All Music entry, don't seem to have gone on a national concert tour, and none of the first 30 Google results are about the band, besides Wikipedia. A more specific search didn't turn up any relevant results, either. -- Kjkolb 06:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:music. Have recorded a demo and played a concert in front of 100 people, but are short of meeting our notability requirements. Capitalistroadster 07:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability as per WP:MUSIC. Alex.tan 09:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 10:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk)
  23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even worth trying to clean this utter mess up! - Bwfc 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Haham hanuka 16:36, 21 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 confusing, but I think that I hope that I'm not blundering to much if I call this a redirect to energy ball. The term does seem to have some hits as referring to light balls or something like that. Ah well, if anybody thinks my decision was completely wrong just inform me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, redirecting to energy ball was dumb, since it just made a back-to-back redirect, let's try again, redirect to fireball? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate re-opened and re-listed, by request of A Man In Black. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kinetite

Two pertinent Google hits for "kinetite telekinesis" on a Star Wars webforum. Delete as original research, or poorly attested neologism. Pilatus 13:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as particularly neo neologism. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm thinking keep and expand, but probably rename to energy ball or some such. The article is about all energy balls, fire balls, power balls and the like in fiction and gaming. According to our fireball disambiguation page, we don't have an article for this yet. It's not original research or a neologism. The term kinetite appeared in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, the first novel in the Star Wars Expanded Universe, according to this source. However, energy ball is a more common name.-LtNOWIS 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting for more eyeballs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect. The word is not notable; the concept, however, is potentially encyclopedic. I have no idea what to rename it to; energy ball seems iffy, but I can't think of anything better. --Ashenai (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Neologisim, original research. Is suggesting 'rename and redirect' a good idea when you can't actually suggest what it should be renamed to? Proto t c 16:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did suggest what it should be renamed to: energy ball (sorry if that wasn't clear). I just noted that I wasn't really happy with that, so as to encourage others to suggest better redirect targets, if they could. --Ashenai (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete blantently obvious neoligism.... maybe a redirect to a dragonball article afterwards.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:07, 18 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Bill Stott

43 results when I searched for his name paired with the one series he created. Entirely wiki mirrors. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable, autobiographical vanity. Hall Monitor 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Haham hanuka 16:34, 21 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 Speedy Delete by Lucky 6.9 as vanity. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kexsteve

Failing WP:MUSIC? Abstain. -- (drini's page|☎) 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Failing big time. Guy's putting copies of his user page all over the place under different spelling variations. Speedied as nn, single-person vanity. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - but feel free to continue to make a new one Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Per Strömberg

Nonnotable adjunct associate professor who can't claim even as much notability as an average professor. Caerwine 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Makes no assertion of notability--CastAStone 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Does not assert notability but publications at [5]

show that he actually is at least as notabile as an average professor. Straight Googling shows he is a research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a research affiliate of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has served on the SNS advisory committee on Swedish bankruptcy reform. Dlyons493 Talk 16:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ulf Axelson

Nonnotable instructor who can't claim even as much notability as an average professor. Caerwine 04:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Makes no assertion of notability. --CastAStone 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete being a professor is a kind of notability claim, but this falls short of encyclopedic notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as NN student // Fred-Chess 16:35, 19 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Army of One

The article appears to be a non-notable entry. --Mysidia (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well we Deleted this wrestlers alter-ego, Richard David Martell, on August 24 (VfD link), albiet with no actual votes. --CastAStone 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to United States Army (do they still use this recruitment slogan?) —Wahoofive (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Wahoofive. If anyone can find an article on US military recruiting, specifically, that's a better destination yet. CDC (talk) 22:21, 18 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ville Mönkkönen

nominated before but no consensus. appears nn bio —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I originally both nominated this article for deletion and closed the debate as "no consensus", but a subsequent Googling found enough hits. — JIP | Talk 10:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It survived Afd in September - this is far too soon to put it up again whatever its failings may be. Dlyons493 Talk 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, not an nn-bio. Moreover, his games are notable. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable.  Grue  16:24, 19 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. Votes saying "Don't Delete" have been ignored without reading or investigating. If you're going to be a sock puppet, at least put some effort into it. (The proper term is "keep", right?) — JIP | Talk 12:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Tatuism

Neologism, seems to be only used in the comersial site www.tatuism.com abakharev 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be a propaganda. May be it should be cleaned up. Brandmeister 09:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bullsh*tism at its best. KNewman 11:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I think it is an excellent idea which many people have already embraced.--Mark 11:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article describes a purported religion based upon adulation of T.A.T.u.. The web site mentioned is currently inaccessible, and there is no evidence independent of it that such a religion exists or has been accepted as such by the world at large. The article cites no sources, of course. Both unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This link shows people are still trying to convert people to their "religion" with flyers and the like. As an official religion this is original research at best. Also, Wikipedia is not an FAQ. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per KNewman, as I couldn't have put it better myself Keresaspa 14:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as said by KNewman Cool3 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - I reckon its cool. You shouldn't delete it. --220.237.100.52 10:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete- Excuse me! there is no evidence that the world has accepted this religion at large!?! Just look at the number of members of www.tatu.ru or the ticket sales for t.A.T.u's concerts!!!

The URL www.tatuism.com is not connected to the Tatuism movment. this domain is not in the control of the people who gave birth to this idea. It was said earlier "people are still trying to convert people to their "religion" with flyers and the like." this is not the case. Tatuism is not a religeon yet. Yes our message is being spread but we do not force ourselve upon anyone, we let you decide if you suport the idea. With this said, I think it shouldn't be deleted.

• Delete- The debate isn't about the merits or lack thereof of this self-described religion, but its notability and merit as a Wikipedia page. Aside from references to www.tatuism.com, the only Google results I get for a "tatuism" search are references to tatuism.com and these two pages, which have the text of this Wikipedia page almost verbatim. This a clearly a joke from some forum. Send to BJAODN if you want. —Josiah Rowe 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete-They just bought the domain tatuism.com so they're really serious about this. Give it time, Google doesn't pick up links that fast.

Ok all very valid points, but i dont think it should be deleted, Wikipedia is supposed to be a place you can find information on everything, even the obscure. Yes intitally this was just a bit of fun, but to my supprise poeple are taking it to heart. I think it should have its page, and not be deleted simply down to the fact google only comes back with a few references. After all whole thing is just over a week old. and was released to the world via a post on the tatu.ru fourm on the 12th of October 2005. Give it time.

• Don't delete...give the idea a chance...as was said before...it's not a religion forced on you...if u like it take it...if you don't then flip the page and walk away...if it's not going to reach the world via wikipedia then i assure you it will find it's way to the world somehow...not only will it have a place here but also it'll earn it...so i say DON'T DELETE

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 -Greg Asche (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Assyrian Future in Iraq

WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Mysidia (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopelessly POV for such a short article. If this were to be kept, there would be nothing informative to be added. -Nameneko 06:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — This page could become a worthy article. The role of Assyrians in Iraq's future is certainly an encyclopaedic article, and not neccessarily crystal-ball gazing. However, given that almost all other articles about Assyrians have been defaced with POV rantings, this article isn't going to become a shining beacon for Wikipedia anytime soon. If it were to be improved, what is already there would have to be thrown out first anyway. Therefore, it is better to delete anyway, than let this stuff lie around waiting to be rewritten. --Gareth Hughes 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If anything Iraqi Assyrians#Future. Mmmbeer 15:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Nameneko. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:41, 20 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

BZPower

I suggest that this article seems to be a rather large advertisement, and also an insignificant article. Seeing as it was written by the members of this site, it is biased and it does seem that they are trying to attract members. I do not see any criticisms, just advertisements here. -84.66.132.133 (08:42, 16 October 2005 UTC)

• I agree. The article does seem more of an advertisement than anything. -Anonymous (14:29, 16 October 2005 68.238.199.245 UTC)
• I do not agree. The article explains the truth of a website that is constantly flamed and spammed on other forums that they're dictators. Besides, who made the article? Did the owners? No, they did not. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.69.245 (talk • contribs) 19:33 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• In response, At least there should be some criticisms. Nothing is perfect. Also, I took a look around that site, and one of their Members originally made the article. -84.66.132.133 (19:01, 17 October 2005 UTC)

• Speedy keep, no new argument has been made that was not addressed in the original VFD. -DDerby-(talk) 05:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable forumcruft.--Isotope23 15:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per DDerby, and clean up the article. --Mairi 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is popular allready. It shouldn't need an article to help it.--AgentA

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 by The Anome as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wakies

Neologism? Reads like nonsense.  freshgavin^TALK   06:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleting as per policy -- reason: patent nonsense. -- The Anome 07:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

SolarCore Legal Services - Nhat Tam Luat

• Keep. I don't think it's rational to delete this page. Show me how deleters know it's non-notable(?)!

SolarCore Legal Services - Nhat Tam Luat does not seem notable. nom&vote delete —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable and possibly advertising. Saberwyn 08:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I already speedily deleted it. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Someone recreated this. Someone else attempted to speedy deleted it as a recreatiopn of deleted content (that is WP:CSD G4). But G4 doesn't apply to things previously speedy deleted, adn IMO this is not a valid speedy delete candidate. I removed the speedy tag. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It may not be a speedy candidate, but I see no evidence of notability. Less than 10 google hist, excluding wikipedia and mirrors. None of them indicate any partidualr notability to my mins, and there seesm no evidence for notability in the articel as it now stands. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 25 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 Keep. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Acuvue

This page seems to be just an advertisement. Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think a good case has been made for keeping the page.--Srleffler 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup if advert/POV; it is a very notable mass-market product. MCB 06:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Popular brand name. Ben D. 06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable brand of contact lenses. Capitalistroadster 07:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• If someone can expand the article and remove the advertisment-ness, keep it. If not, delete. Saberwyn 08:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This issue has surfaced many times before. When does a brand become notable enough for its own entry as opposed to a redirect to the comapny that makes or sells it? In this case, the article is simply a list of associated brandnames. I can't see how that is notable in-and-of itself? If there was a controversy, a history or some other dissociated aspect of the brand attached to it, then it would be clear. But as it stands, this is essentially empty so why not redirect to Vistakon or J&J? Dottore So 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue has surfaced enough times that WP:CORP was created to deal with the very question of product notability. Uncle G 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. By the iterated standards, shouldn't this be deleted then? Dottore So 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • According to WP:CORP it meets this standard: The product or service has been the subject of published works whose source is independent of the company itself.. "Acuvue" gets 96 hits on PubMed. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for this information. This certainly alters my opinion, although it would be nice if the page actually contained some content other than who makes them, and a list of their sub-brands.--Srleffler 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree. I added a couple of items to get the ball rolling. Edwardian 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable brand of contact lenses with large, wide-scale advertising. Mmmbeer 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:CORP (specifically Criteria for products and services), although the suggestion to redirect to Vistakon is a good one to reduce potential linkspam from on-line contact lens distributors. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, granted this page has been subject to spamming (hence it is on my watchlist), notability is easy to establish. If you recognize a brand immediately, it is notable, published works are not necessary. - 24.141.72.95 06:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CORP. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 22 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. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Benjmin Dodd

Not sure if this is a hoax, but in any case the heading for the article is misspelled. The contributor (203.208.66.99) was vandalizing other pages just after submitting this. Its close to midnight here in Oregon and I decided to let you all sort this one out. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Hoax, can't find anything on Google or through The Ballarat courier. I do commend him on his reference to the nyckelharpa. Ben D. 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination and Ben D.. I confirm that Google finds nothing. If it isn't a hoax, it is non-notable, and may be deleted either way. Walter Siegmund 08:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Google knows nothing of this person. --Ashenai (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a likely hoax by a known vandal. Hall Monitor 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete mispelt name isn't mispelt, at the Jazz club Benjmin was introduced as Benj-min, could be an alias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 05:46, October 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete read the article in the Courier about the nyckelharba, but it being very small I only found the article in the Courier because I was sure it exsisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 06:00, October 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete although Benjmin seems non-notable to people who aren't from the Ballarat district it shouldn't condem the Wikipedia article to deletion, the late Radio Dave was another Ballarat personality that it would seem not to exsist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 06:00, October 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Benjmin Dodd is well known amongst the minorities, this article informs people of Benjmin Dodd has done, although it needs to be edited as he is now also teaching music at a local school --Benjmin Dodd 15:01, 23 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. — JIP | Talk 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Arthriga

This article is about a made up drug. -- Kjkolb 07:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. *sigh*. Alex.tan 09:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Kjkolb is probably wrong about this drug being "made up", but most of the links from this article do not lead to anything related to Arthiga. And the text reads as if a copyright violation, but I can't the website this text was stolen from. This is enough of a mess that I insist that someone either verify that there is salvagable material here, or it gets a Speedy delete. -- llywrch 00:36, 19 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. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Truthiness

Votes for deletion:

• Delete self-admitted neologism coined on TV show on day article was written. MCB 07:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism... Though I did laugh at the line about not deleting this for being "not notable enough". Did the author see this coming? Maybe we have a new Kreskin among us.--Isotope23 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered my own question... article was speedied earlier today and recreated by author (thus the text about not deleting). Can't remember if there is a speedy for recreates of a deleted page...--Isotope23 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. CSD G4, and the templates are {{db-repost}} or {{db-g4}}. But this wasn't an exact recreation. Punkmorten 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Guess it can go AfD then... no harm in it sitting for 5 days.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. KeithD (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for that pseudo-philosophical whine at the bottom. --Agamemnon2 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete becuase first off, what's the harm in having it, it's just as relevant as having a page on The God Machine, a machine which only exists on the Daily Show and only affects its viewers. Come on. We're trying to start up a whole little set of Colbert Report Pages...give us some slack. --Carl

But the God Machine was used weekly on TDS. As far as I can recall, the word truthiness has been used just once. It's too soon for any running jokes to have appeared on the Colbert Report. KeithD (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete : This article should not be deleted because one considres it "not notable enough" for being from a TV show. Words are symbols, definitions are arbitrary. TV shapes culture. - 24.17.167.103( Moved from the article aka see article history )
• Don't Delete We have hundreds of thousands of pages and it is likely that this word could be referenced in the future, the article really just needs to be cleaned up. Behun 09:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The phrase isnt common language on the show, so for the time being its not relevant enough to make an article. If the phrase kept being used on the show it might be worth keeping. Remy B 09:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's not important enough for a standalone entry. Like Remy B wrote, if it were constantly used, the perception would be different. Neier 11:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree, it is silly to have a page for a one-time joke. -- MicahMN | μ 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the show is a hit and this becomes a major running joke, than it can be re-added. Until then, this is not notable. Andrew Levine 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one-time neologism. --Interiot 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How about we start one wikipedia entry that lists and defines all of his word of the days? The only problem is that it would fill up quickly, as the show is on four nights per week. --Sean WI 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • More filled up than... say... the MythBusters episodes? --Interiot 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 05:22, 25 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. — JIP | Talk 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Asheri

This is an advertisement for a amateur writing Blogspot site. -- Kjkolb 07:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 07:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 05:14, 19 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. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeylani

Seems to be vanity. No related result came out when googling the term. Delete --*drew 07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- A medical student in Sudan… etc. – I wish him all the best. However, right now notability is yet to be established. --Bhadani 13:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. MCB 20:34, 19 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. — JIP | Talk 06:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson P. Burrow

Vanity (0 Google Hits) Swamp Ig 07:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity lol. *drew 07:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. MCB 20:35, 19 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. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

MotherLAN

Article about a LAN party, containing patent nonsense like "Multiplyers will come into local shops maybe in the year 6500 ± 2000 years" and the bulk of the article is an entire quoted "controversial essay" which appears to be a copyvio. Apart from the the patent nonsense and lengthy copyvio, what remains appears to be advertising. Delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory or an advertising medium; may well also fail the notability test. -- The Anome 07:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Advertisment, copyvio, POV essay, forumcruft, FAQ guide, is there anything this article can't do?! "Mother of all LANs"? Mother of all DELETEs!. Saberwyn 08:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Alex.tan 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for blatant misuse of the word LAN. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay, nonsense, non-notable, OR, adcruft... this one hits 'em all.--Isotope23 15:45, 18 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 REDIRECT to Tetherball. — JIP | Talk 12:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Teatherball

Basically an exact duplicate of tetherball Pak21 08:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination Pak21 08:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to tetherball. That seems like a reasonable misspelling. Al 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. billybobfred 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. --Ashenai (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Speedy. Punkmorten 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to tetherball. the iBook of the Revolution 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Duh. Penelope D 01:20, 20 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Neleh Dennis

This article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neleh Dennis, and has been speedy deleted a few times as recreations. However these speedies were disputed and a request to undelete it was made, and it succeeded. This is a procedural AFD debate. Article is about a Survivor contestant, I am not entirely sure about the notability of such people so no vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - For being on hit national/international TV show for almost all of one season, which would qualify her if she had been an actress with comparable air time. She got a reasonable amount stories about her during her appearance, so there's ample independent sources available. --rob 08:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Neleh was not only a Survivor runner-up, she was a reporter for a Utah news station for several years. --JamesB3 09:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reality show contestants are the equivalent of game-show contestants, and are not generally notable unless they achieve more fame later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being on a game show is hardly enough for notability. — JIP | Talk 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about being on the Price-is-right for 10 minutes. We're talking about almost an entire season of a hit prime-time TV show. Now, you're entitled to think that's minor, but please don't lump together different things. This is like being a lead actor of TV show for about the same time. We're not deciding if somebody should be notable, but if *others* have found them to be. This person was written about a fair bit, and followed. Perhaps you don't think they should have been, but they were. Hence, they are notable for our purposes. --rob 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I was actually talking about the Survivor thing. Sorry for being unclear. I don't think being on Survivor is enough for notability either. — JIP | Talk 11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for clarifying. Can I ask which variant of notability you're using. Here's some different ones I've seen used around here (usually not explicitly stated). Does one of these fit you, or do you have a different approach:
        1. Notability means somebody is *worthy* of notice. You don't think she's worthy. Wikipedia shouldn't follow others, but decide for itself who is worthy and who is not. Since being a "survivor" doesn't require talent or substantial contribution to humanity, she's not worthy. By this logic, an unnoticed person worthy of notice is a better article than anybody unworthy, regardless how much attention has been paid.
        2. Notability means other respected authorities in the area have noticed her. She has been found notable by others, but they are not "respectable authorities", and don't count.
        3. Notability means she has been widely found to be worthy of notice, by many sources, and those sources include reliable sources of information which could make a verifiable article. Wikipedia must be a follower, and not a leader. By this, I think she qualifies. --rob 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure she's a nice person but she fails to meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Reality shows, in my opinion, are mere game shows and contestants are not automatically notable. Being one of the cast is a long way from being the "lead actor" of a TV show. The fact that she was a news reporter is also unpersuasive. Reporters are an important profession but no more deserving of an encyclopedia entry than any other profession. We would not, for example, argue that she would deserve an encyclopedia article if she had been a doctor for a few years. Rossami (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, survivor contestents and news reporters are in the public eye, unlike doctors. Kappa 14:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kappa Rossami. Sandstein 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What? Kappa voted "keep" and you are saying "delete per Kappa"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I was about to correct that, but you were faster; I meant delete as per Rossami.
    • Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as much as I dislike the show its contestants do indeed have notability especially when the contestant in question is the Runner up in the competition. This person like Richard Hatch or Ken Jennings is considered newsworthy enough that national news would respond if something happened to her and that seems a valid establishment of notability to me.
• Keep, despite how boring Survivor is.Gateman1997 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-entity whose 15 minutes are up. DV8 2XL 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JamesB3, rob, and Kappa; this figure has been repeatedly televised to an audience of 5,000 or more and it is entirely conceivable that people may want to learn more about this person from Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable.  Grue  16:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notable only to those who spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. Denni☯ 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rossami. -- Corvus 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently, she was the runner-up on this show. Runners-up are notable enough for me. Xoloz 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please people who spend an inordinate amount of time watching television might want to learn more about this person here so erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 17:16, 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 DELETE. Robert 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Domobot

Searches through Vivisimo and Google only turned up this article. The concept is imaginary. Octothorn 09:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn neologism. Haeleth 13:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the 1,090 Google hits appear to be either Wikipedia or its mirrors, suggesting neologism. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:31, 18 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. User:SandeepMadhur and User:Gemini5785 are obvious sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Douchecunt

Protologism. WP:ISNOT a dictionary—even of established words. encephalon 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. encephalon 09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per — JIP. -feydey 12:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attention-seeking behavior. Denni☯
• Keep This is a one of a kind word and needs to be treated like that. Wikipedia has both "douchebag" and "cunt" as words so there is no reason why the combination of the two words should be erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepMadhur (talk • contribs) , at 22:42, 2005 October 21.
• Keep Society create new words everyday. Words don't need to be in a dictionary to be validated. And I've bet many people have combined the word "douche" and "cunt" to form douchecunt to insult, make fun of, or joke people. Just because some poor brown man at UR thought of putting it on wikipedia, doesn't mean you have to be jealous and try to take it off!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemini5785 (talk • contribs) , at 04:49, 2005 October 22.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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} 12:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Argoth

Bandcruft, vanity non-notable CambridgeBayWeather 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I see... well, feel free to delete everything I've made here.

I'm sorry, congratulations for your work but I just can't avoid feeling dissappointed and offended, maybe I'm not an icon of the media, possibly because in my country people don't actually pay attention to these art manifestations (Venezuela), instead of other countries in Europe, where every musician will get their right attention. But my intention was precisely to make my works available to the international public, willing people to listen to me, to know who I am, that was all, I'm not even willing to make money with my music, maybe a little bunch of bucks to buy good software, but not to make a pool full of green, useless paper.

So, the more you have the more you will get, the less you have the less you will get. Whenever you want, please take a listen to my music, maybe it isn't the best thing in the world, but just let me know if you like it and reconsider the idea. I understand your point but I guess you know how I feel.

Best regards, anyway.

Fredrik (preceding comment added by Gorepriest, moved here from this AfD's talk page) --Ashenai (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and vanity. Sandstein 14:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I've added an explanation of this on the article talk page so hopefully the author can see the criteria his band is being compared to.--Isotope23 15:51, 18 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Barron's-Auxier, Inc

Unwikified advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:23, 18 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

David E. Auxier, CFPIM,

Unwikified advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 18 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. — JIP | Talk 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kingfisher Safaris Resort

non notable + advertising-- SoothingR 09:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There should be a CSD criterion for articles speaking in the first-person voice. — JIP | Talk 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. Devotchka 00:54, 26 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Blackholepit

Not notable. Ashenai (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't understand why is it being considered for deletion, or why isn't it notable. Please let me know what can I do to make it notable under your considerations, I believe this is unfair, I was only trying to share my work of art through this excellent source of knowledge such as wikipedia, but there is no major thing to talk about, I believe everything is in the music. Please reconsider the idea. Thanks. (preceding comment by Gorepriest, copied here from this AfD's talk page.) --Ashenai (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Gorepriest, thanks for commenting. We're not trying to attack you or your music; we're just trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, which means that stuff that isn't well-known doesn't really belong here. Please see WP:MUSIC for our music inclusion guidelines. I quite agree with you that a lot of popular music is terrible, and there's a lot of barely-known, but great, music out there. However, Wikipedia just isn't the place to share your art (unless it's already well known). I'm truly sorry, because you seem like a polite and considerate person. Do keep editing Wikipedia, and please don't take this AfD discussion as a personal attack. --Ashenai (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ashenai hits the nail right on the head, Gorepriest. Wikipedia is all about what people know. It is not an advertising billboard for stuff that nobody but its creator knows about. What you can do to make your music notable does not involve Wikipedia at all. You can persuade other people to listen to, to buy, and to write about your music. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around this process. Uncle G 11:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Gorepriest, do you have a myspace.com account? That is the perfect vehicle for promoting your music.--Isotope23 15:55, 18 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 Speedy Delete by Seabhcan as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sons of Alexander

Cannot find any reference to any such author or novels Stephenb (Talk) 11:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-verifiable. And the "unofficial Internet fanclub" seems to be even more reclusive than the author. Haeleth 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mecke

I believe this is a hoax. If it's not, it's original research - no sources are provided and with Google, no mention of this monkey can be found anywhere else. -- JoanneB 11:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is Original Reaserch the book is being currently published, if you dont believe me then you can email me @ benweddel@rogers.com

• If you are interested in more reaserch on these marvelous species then i can email you my reaserch and if you are interested in web design then you can make a web page, if you contribute and are a high school student then i will gladly email or fax you school explaining the work you have contributed on the fund for these great and noble creatures as i know you require a certain amount of volenteer hours to get your deploma.
• Sencerly Benjamin Weddel, Mecke reasercher
• Delete. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is unable to use original research in its articles. After the book is published, reviewed by peers in the biological sciences, and receives some public notice, perhaps this can be revisited. Presumably, also, the book itself cites some primary sources.
• Delete for a ridiculous attempt at a hoax, and for wasting my time. --Agamemnon2 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Im thinkking that someboddy who has enoufh inteligents to write a book ought to be a much better speller than this and shold also know how to end a sentense with a period hear and their. Holycow, can you say hoacks? Oh and deleat. Denni☯ 00:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The user hath partaken of too much Monkey perhaps? This article fails the Mecke test. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-verifiable. Haeleth 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mecke and Monkey are both imprint and slang for MDMA

• Comment these votes the above two votes were removed by User:38.116.192.13 who has today vandalised a large number of pages, reinstating the votes [6]. chowells 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete obviously a hoax, creator vandalised a large number of pages today and also vandalised this AfD page. chowells 17:33, 20 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. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gay pubs in Leeds

Articles: Bar Fibre (Leeds), The Bridge Inn (Leeds), The New Penny (Leeds) and Queens Court (Leeds).

Four gay pubs in Leeds. No special claims for notability. -- RHaworth 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all four as NN. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of gay pubs in Leeds (or ...in West Yorkshire]]). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "Basically, this is a typical gay pub as you would expect to find anywhere in London or any big city" says it all. Don't merge this into a list; Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages, and these articles are vague description and POV review. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge as a list into something like LGBT culture in Leeds. Youngamerican 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. hard to imagine how any of these could be any more than a stub. If it was an article about a chain of pubs that might be notable but I'm afraid I think most articles about places where I go for a few hours to drink unhealthily large amounts of vodka aren't notable. chowells 17:15, 22 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. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

SKILLS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: UK MANUFACTURING'S IMAGE AS A CAREER

Original research essay with a terrible title. -- RHaworth 11:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE AND PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPS. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• (In all fairness: only the title is all-caps.) Delete per WP:NOR. Lupo 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All the titles are in caps ;) Mmmbeer 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay appears to violate WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, POV essay. MCB 20:42, 19 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. Robert 00:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sonic spar

No notability defined, google gives 6 hits [7]. feydey 11:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable music experiment thingy. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bandcruft with no evidence of notability Haeleth 13:52, 18 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 merge & redirect to The Moors Murders. --Stormie 05:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Pauline Reade

I don't believe that being a murder victim is neccessarily enough to make one notable, and in this case all the information belongs in the main moors murderers articles. ymmv... Spankthecrumpet 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Spankthecrumpet 12:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into The Moors Murders. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:27, 18 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. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Zenegra

Spam. Nothing more than an ad for the link at the bottom. CambridgeBayWeather 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The web site claims to sell generic Sildenafil Citrate, but Pfizer holds the patent on it and there is no such thing as a legal generic version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:38, 22 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 SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wryyyyy (2nd nomination)

Non-notable neologism. Was previously speedy deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wryyyyy). The current contents are no more encyclopedic than the original. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. I was actually in the process of nominating this myself. Al 12:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Growing in popularity, so why delete it? Google hits and more hits.

• Speedy delete nonsense. --JJay 13:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as nonsense (article excerpt: "The ultimate place for shouting out Wryyyyy is on a large modern yellow steamroller.") and based on the overwhelming consensus formed in the previous VfD that this just isn't article-worthy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or 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} 13:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Strike surfing

I'm a gamer, but this is pure gamecruft. A useful article for the Counter-Strike encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia. Al 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not even of interest to the vast majority of CS players. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's of enough interest (to some) to warrant a merge, but it's already better covered at Counter-Strike_maps#Surf.  freshgavin^TALK   23:39, 18 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, and thanks for the note, but I would have figured User:Francs2000 and User:Tuf-Kat know how to write "keep" instead of "Do Not Delete" anyway. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

EWA

Bandcruft, vanity. No recordings etc. CambridgeBayWeather 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Marked for speedy deletion as nn-bio. Sandstein 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. I don't think bands qualify for A7 though. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, Was cited as being a 'work in progress' so it should be presumed that, for now, it is genuine- 17:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. -R. fiend 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, I have heard them mentioned on the UK's 'NewStyle Radio 98.7fm' - Francs2000 1:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete per WP:NMG. 7. They were featured on mass media [[8]in a story about local talent.- Tuf-Kat 3:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: The "votes" by Francs2000 and Tuf-Kat as well as the unsigned vote were actually cast by an anon, namely User:82.46.138.72. See [9]. To you who did this, note that this type of behaviour is considered highly disruptive if not outright vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Striking out forged votes. CambridgeBayWeather 11:53, 19 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. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Turd Pool Language

While this does not appear to be patent nonsense, or qualify under any other speedy delete criteria, it does not appear to be a believable encyclopedia entry either. Delete if no sources are provided to verify the material in this article. --Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like a silly joke, and a quick Google search didn't confirm it either. Delete as unverifiable unless legitimate references are provided. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like Speedy Delete nonsense to me. --JJay 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V.--Isotope23 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless quickly shown otherwise. I wonder if this is by the same anon that brought us Yopu? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 18 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. Robert 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni/Media

It's just an orphaned image gallery containing fair use images. Presumably there was no room in the main article, so they have been stashed on this "secret" subpage. If fair use images are not used in an actual article they should be deleted, not dumped on subpages like this. So I say delete this subpage per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Sherool 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Denni☯ 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and speedy the images that aren't used elsewhere. —Cryptic (talk) 14:26, 20 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Metalgearliquid

Article is obviously a parody of a video game without stating so. While a few sources have used "Metal gear liquid" as a joke, no consistent meme or hoax exists that validates a page describing said joke. X1cygnus 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete/speedy. Mmmbeer 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax.  freshgavin^TALK   23:41, 18 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft weapon

Is notable, but in the form it is written in, I suggest that it be deleted or started over again. Plus, Wikipedia probably already has an article that would cover information about this. Molotov (talk)
14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As far as existing articles go, the nearest I can find is List of aircraft weapons - I can't find any overviews of the history of airborne armaments, so we do apparently need something along those lines... but this isn't it. - Haeleth 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• We have a wide range of current weapons in our Missile article including an article on Air-to-air missile and Air-to-surface missile. We have categories on Guided Missiles and Bombs as well as a Bomb article. This isn't worth merging and it is of dubious benefit as a redirect so Delete. Capitalistroadster 23:49, 18 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultural identity

Appears to be (confusing) original research exclusively. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Sandstein 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a reasonable article topic. Needs cleanup, maybe, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The topic is perfectly reasonable, of course, but the article contains only original research right now. (Or should we just delete everything except maybe the introductory sentence and then continue improvement?) Sandstein 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Logophile 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Feels like a copyvio, but I can't find an online source. --Carnildo 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Blatant copyvio. See [10]. I'm not sure how to change this to speedy.  freshgavin^TALK   23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a Wikipedia mirror, as are most of the other Google hits for lines from this article. --Carnildo 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oof. Didn't expect a mirror to have such a different layout. Won't make that mistake again. -   -;;. Still feels like a copyvio, the initial definition is worded exactly the same on tons of sites that aren't mirrored, but if nothing is found, then I say keep and cleanup.  freshgavin^TALK   04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable topic with more two and a half million Google hits [11] and there are 1860 papers listed on Ebbsco Academic Search Premier search for that topic. The copyvio alleged by user Freshgavin isn't relevant because it seems to be a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with major cleanup. An important topic, but the discussion is limited in its usefulness and badly written. --The Famous Movie Director 00:36, 22 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 No Consensus---KEEP by default. This likely shall be AfD a few months from now depending on how much notability it achieves; this article was created too early, before he topic could prove itself worthy. Keep for now, and then anyone can AfD later if necessary.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa

Looks like author's self-promotion of a not-yet published travel book. -- RHaworth 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article provides no evidence as to the book's significance, and is principally concerned with making sure the reader understands just how good it is. Sliggy 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article factually describes contents of the book which is due to be released November 1, 2005. The book is on record with Bowkers and Library of Congress. The tone might be edited to be less sales-oriented, but reviews are helpful. 24.161.133.194

The reviews, helpful or otherwise, are misplaced. There is a need to keep a neutral point of view. Sliggy 15:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The tone of the description has been edited to present a more neutral view, yet at the same time present the book's significance as suggested. Open to further suggestions, if needed. Pelegrinotrek

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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} 02:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Alex Paurine

Previous edits from this user suggest a vandal at work, and I cannot verify the existence of the person in this article Stephenb (Talk) 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hoax or non notable. Delete either way. --Ashenai (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 20:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a non-notable person. -- SoothingR 11:08, 21 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 Keep. Ral315 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Balwyn High School

Substantially no information. Conscious 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is not even enough information to identify what/where it is. It might very well be notable, assuming all schools are notable, but not currently. Mmmbeer 15:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid stub, and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Incidentally this school seems to attract a lot of people to live in Balwyn [12]. Kappa 15:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. -- DS1953 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as high school in Victoria. Reasonable little school stub. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another nn school. Dottore So 19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school stub --JAranda | watz sup 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Notable to the community which it serves. Silensor 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep an important school, as schools tend to be. --rob 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Please do not nominate any more schools as it achieves nothing but the generation of ill-will between users. CalJW 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article fails to establish notability.--Nicodemus75 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepJoaquin Murietta 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Another fine start to a good school article. Unfocused 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stub with no potental to be expanded. --Aquillion 07:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been expanded significantly, so my nomination applies no more. Thank you Kappa. Conscious 12:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At first it basically had no info, but now it's expanded. Alensha 13:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Also as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -newkai | talk | contribs 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Denni☯ 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please do not confuse popularity with notability Yuckfoo 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:52, 21 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hisham Sliti

I nominate Hisham Sliti for deletion. Although the prison conditions and hunger strike are notable current events, this individual is not. Joaquin Murietta 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Disclaimer, I started this article.

I have been reading the accounts from various detainees, through their lawyers. A number of the detainees specifically cited this specific beating as a key trigger to the second hunger strike. I think this makes him worthy of an article, -- Geo Swan 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, passes my notability bar. It could do with some expansion though, especially about his arrest. --Apyule 15:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - In need of tidy up and expansion, but a notable subject. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:14, 20 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.