Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 wasI have decided to close this debate. Obvious keep. Notice this vandal harbors a grudge against Wikipedia (check edits). Placement at the top designed to encourage lengthy and frivolous debate. Lotsofissues 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith

Keep - Had not heard of Tilly Smith prior to seeing her listed in Wikipedia. Suggest you keep the article and include a link to the National Geographic article [1]. Teachers looking to see how they can have a positive effect on students may benefit. In my opinion, this is valuable and relevant information for social, psychological, humanitarian and educational reasons. Tilly Smith saved 100 lives. Who writing here has saved one? The act itself deserves an entry. Clyo Beck December 16, 2005

NN person, just a girl credited with saving nearly a hundred foreign tourists at Maikhao Beach. Unknown UserTalk 15:26, 16 December, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - subject of international recognition and media coverage. ABC. BBC, National Geographic. the wub "?!" 10:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• just a girl credited with saving nearly a hundred foreign tourists? Man, even if I hated tourists that much, I would not confess it on Wikipedia. Assuming that the nomination by a user who does not reveal his identity was in bad faith, I vote for speedy keep. --DrTorstenHenning 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject of major news coverage, also received award. If saving hundreds of people all at the same time isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is surely verging on a speedy keep based on silly (if not bad faith) nomination. --Last Malthusian 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language is possibly a bit unclear there - I don't think it's a bad faith nomination, I do think it's rather silly. --Last Malthusian 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the criterion for a "speedy keep" is that the nomination is clear cut vandalism and/or WP:POINT. I do think that this is a borderline case. Speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is notable, she hit the headlines in the UK after the event and again when she got her award. Keep keep keep. Peeper 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Ditto above Computerjoe 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The next time a student complains about how useless geography is - I hope this article will be here to point to. Ifnord 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Lucky 6.9. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and every day life

Obvious delete,any slightly relevant info could go on the Math article. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless article, maths relates to real-life, so what? Zzzzz 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. FireFox 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of God House music event

Google From Googling the main terms, I found nothing but wikimirrors. Seems like a neighborhood event somewhere. delete

Lotsofissues 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alr 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wingsandsword 02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Nothing wrong with having articles on neighborhood events, as long as they're properly referenced to publicly-available information. However, unless a second source (i.e., additional to the website) can be produced, there's probably not going to ever be enough verifiable information to make a good article. —Simetrical (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it turns into a much-more-detailed article.--SarekOfVulcan 09:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and User:SarekOfVulcan. Jolan tru or something. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 10:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking - well anything, very much. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, merge, and disambiguate. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:34, Dec. 27, 2005

Tracer Bullet

This and all other comic stubs are much to insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a discription of Tracer Bullet in the Calvin and Hobbes article. I've also listed other Calvin and Hobbes stubs as articles for deletion.--FelineFanatic13 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Calvin and Hobbes Zzzzz 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to merge the two articles because Tracer Bullet is already listed in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--

FelineFanatic13 00:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect then? - Rudykog 00:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else can redirect it if they want to. Redirecting is not my speciality on Wikipedia.--FelineFanatic13 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that hard. Anyway, something that can be merged doesn't need deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - this page should be a dab pointing to Tracer ammunition and Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvin's_alter-egos. I could see someone searching for "Tracer bullet" and meaning the piece of ammunition, not the comic strip reference. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Tracer Bullet and Tracer bullet are different pages... I still like the idea of the dab. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. -- JJay 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and I'm a big C & H fan. Wikipedia must be useful. Right? Billbrock 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's enough verifiable info available to make a full-length article about this. See this. —Simetrical (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A bog-standard private-eye parody popping up a few times as a gag in comic strip? Uh uh. Comic-cruft. Delete outright or redirect to Tracer ammunition. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for those voting to keep everythig verifiable - It's not like the section on alter-egos in the Calvin and Hobbes article is swelling to the point of bursting or something, why have redundant information? You have a point about Wikipedia's potential purview, which I don't disrespect, whether or not I agree, but in this case, you're overextending, IMO. The first article to bud off of the Calvin and Hobbes article would have to be the entire alter-egos section, and then, when each section of that grows big enough, it could be split. That's when Tracer Bullet gets his own article. I'm not holding my breath. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate or delete. I can't see this being as useful as Spaceman Spiff is.--SarekOfVulcan 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Calvin and Hobbes. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Calvin and Hobbes and then disabiguate with Tracer ammunition. the wub "?!" 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - to Tracer ammunition, and to Calvin and Hobbes, where this info should be merged. Too crufty for its own article. Proto t c 10:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• disambiguate and then redirect to C&H. This should not stand alone. Eusebeus 11:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect info that's not yet mentioned at Calvin and Hobbes. If you want a reference to tracer ammunition, it should be at tracer bullet, note the lower case "b". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, from where it can be broken out again if it expands beyond the size of that page. Hiding talk 12:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per GTBacchus. - squibix 14:02,
• Merge into calvin and hobbes---Frogman1326 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per most people. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between Tracer ammunition and Calvin and Hobbes. -R. fiend 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate because some readers will want the ammo article and some will want the Calvin & Hobbes article. JamesMLane 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate--what they said. - Naif 05:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to the ammo and C&A articles, merge any unmerged info to C&A. --Alf ^melmac 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - per an overwhelming consensus. FCYTravis 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights in Iraq

I believe that this article should be deleted. It is just pushing the author/authoress' point of view, and doesn't give much information, but to be fair I'll put it to a vote. Chooserr 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree with the previous poster. The article has a neutral point of view and factual information, as well as a good list of references. I see no reason to delete it. -- Ritchy 00:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now, although the article might need renaming (e.g. to LGBT rights in Iraq). Out of curiosity: what are the pov issues you are talking about, Chooserr? Aecis ^praatpaal 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is only an option if the article is intrinsically and irreparably pov. I don't think that is the case with this article. So if there are any pov issues, put a npov tag on the article and fix the problems or use the article's talk page. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote (again), this time to speedy keep. Nomination is a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis ^praatpaal 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - factually pointless information. npov? article smacks of western cultural bias. those disgusting iraqis, staying over there with their own culture and traditions! why cant they be decadent like us! Zzzzz 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is only Western countries should have gay rights articles? Remember, this is a vote to delete, not a vote to fix. Ashibaka tock 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty of precedent - we have many other articles in Category:Gay rights by country, including a number of non-Western countries. FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is wild full of POV, totally inapropriate, attack pice against america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, but take out some POV statements. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is absolutely nothing POV about the concept of an article on LGBT rights in Iraq. If there are POV problems, fix them. FCYTravis 00:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointles POV "article"

User:Jcuk 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable topic on which verifiable information exists. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I find it hard to understand the nomination or the delete votes. This is a fairly good sized article with a dozen external links that has received quite a few contributions from different editors for half a year. It's a dry analysis of Iraqi law and recent history as it affects gay rights. It certainly doesn't attack the United States. If it does have POV problems (which I don't see), then the proper procedure is to give it an NPOV flag and leave comments on the talk page or better yet to correct the text. The nominator attempted none of these remedies. There is no valid basis for deletion. Durova 01:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep per User:Rob. Bad faith nomination. Now I know why several deletionists seem not to have read the article. Durova 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yep. I daresay it's a borderline speedy keep. FCYTravis 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm at a loss to see what POV issues to fix. The only specific examples in this discussion come from people who appear not to have read the article. It attacks no country or culture. It does not advocate homosexuality. Category:Gay rights by country has 35 other entries. I say this with caution since such things should not be suggested lightly, but perhaps the intersection of gay + Iraq pushes buttons for some people. Durova 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and whoever thinks this article is POV should say why, specifically, on the talk page, so we can begin to fix those POV problems. Deleting is not the solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete needs to go--64.12.116.12 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clean it up, don't wipe it. That's not how you solve problems. Ashibaka tock 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per precedent. Jasmol 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fix any problems. -- JJay 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fix NPOV problems. No matter how little is left after NPOV, its better than nothing. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 01:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article, as said by Durova above, is a well researched and rather comprehensive one (IMHO) covering history, legal issues, etc. The POV issues that some users seem to see should be discussed on its talk page and eventually fixed, not simply speedily deleted. That does not solve problems and as far as I was informed, was not the way Wikipedia operated. You don't see the George Bush or Palestinian articles being speedied, and those are, again IMHO, more controversial and potentially POV than this one. Another problem seems to be User:64.12.116.11, who has in the past couple of minutes added a NPOV tag, a nonsense tag, a totally disputed tag, an unwanted tag, and finally deleted the article (which has now been reverted). This user has a history of vandalism and has struck again here, evidently, which I think is a different issue than the other discussions. Sputnikcccp 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an informative article worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Fix POV and I am ok with it. JG of Borg 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Detailed article with useful information. No reason has been given for deletion- the only one stated is POV, which is something corrected by editing, not deletion. This could easily be a Speedy Keep. -- Jake 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, per User:Durova.--SarekOfVulcan 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Are we going to have to have articles about this on every country in the world? Dwain 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why shouldn't we? We have articles on every freaking elementary school in the world now. The way a country treats its gay and lesbian citizens is hardly non-notable. FCYTravis 03:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dwain 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I see you have a pretty strong POV. "Homosexuals are non-notable"? Is that why their rights are a major political issue around the world? "Irrelevant minority?" Way to show your biases. FCYTravis 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely people have a legitimate interest in knowing how to obey the law? Many countries have criminal codes on this subject, but the laws differ. Durova 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we are going to have articles about this on every country in the world. And why shouldn't we? Homosexuality is notable, just like crime, cuisine, culture and religion. And the legal dealings with homosexuality in different countries is definitely encyclopedic. I won't get involved in a religious discussion with you (although I have a feeling that I think most of what you feel is utter bullshit), but you really shouldn't let your pov get in the way of your contributions to this encyclopedia. We are dealing with the world as it is here, not with the world as it perhaps should be. Aecis ^praatpaal 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete 100% POV nonsense, get it out of here--152.163.100.12 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no problems that can't be corrected by a good edit. Cynicism addict 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per User:Cynicism addict. Fix the POV. Billbrock 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There was a serious academic book on the subject in China (Passions of the Cut Sleeve), cited in Homosexuality_in_China. Billbrock 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. By analogy to the above citation, I would suggest a redirect to Homosexuality_in_Iraq; hard to discuss the legal aspects w/o discussing the culture. On second thought, no, per User:Durova. Billbrock 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P.S. Check out Gay_rights_by_country and note some of the amusing omissions. Billbrock 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• May need editing, but there's enough good material in there for me to be a firm keep. —Simetrical (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Edit or tag the article for NPOV, but don't delete. Chanlord 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I hope that whoever counts the votes can see that none of the people who voted to delete have any valid reason for doing so. Logophile 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they aren't votes anyway. This is a discussion, not a poll. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so it won't be deleted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Even though I think this article needs improvement, there's decidedly no reason whatsoever to delete it. --ParkerHiggins 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given that this AfD is obviously going to fail, I would strongly suggest to the nominator that a withdrawal would be in order. Unless you like watching people run up the vote. FCYTravis 09:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - bizarre how much response it generated though, isn't it? I guess the whole idea of gay Iraqis really touches on a nerve of some kind... who knew? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not that bizarre. This is a clearly encyclopedic topic for which there is absolutely no logical reason to delete. The nominator went around posting this AfD on talk pages of people he figured would support him. Seems like he got more than he bargained for. I liked the one delete voter's logic that "homosexuals are non-notable." FCYTravis 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Right, FCYTravis, it's not about the content of the article. I personally don't care at all about the topic. To me it is about the idea of somebody nominating a valid encyclopedia article with no justifiable reason.
      • Comment - I guess I was referring to the delete votes. Those are what I find bizarre. Nobody's explained what the so-called "POV issue" is yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gay rights in various countries are an important topic. — JIP | Talk 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Informative. the wub "?!" 10:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep legitimate, interesting, and useful article. PatGallacher 12:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I find this[2][3] attempt at organizing along religious lines unacceptable (specifically asking Catholics to delete an article for being about gays), and think it shows an invalid basis for the nomination. Anyways, this article is clearly on a signficant topic at a high level (national) with plenty of signficant information to cover (with great room for improvement) --Rob 12:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those edits do not stand on their own. They are part of what seems to be structured and organized behaviour to fix votes, and with it wikipedia content, along the lines of religious beliefs. See for instance user:Pitchka's talk page spamming concerning the CfD for Category:Pro-life celebrities and Category:Pro-choice celebrities [4]. In the space of a few hours, he scoured just about every user category where he thought he could possibly find supporters. He spammed no less than 57 users, asking them to vote his way. I'm not sure if this qualifies as meatpuppetry, but it sure reeks of vote fixing. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also seem to be on a mission to eradicate the BCE/CE dating system from wikipedia. 1 Aecis ^praatpaal 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Dwain 04:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I think you've just illustrated everyone's point in that statement there. Please keep in mind that everyone does not share you opinion and homosexuality and the rights and opinions of various countries on homosexuality are important and notable. And please don't use Wikipedia to push your own agenda. Chanlord 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A noteworthy topic that could easily be fixed up and NPOV-ified by A Wikipedian with knwoledge of the subject at a later date. - Wezzo 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems verifiable and real, but desperately in need of cleanup. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, good article and lots of precedent. (At this point in the vote I'm me-tooing, but any attempt to religiously censor Wikipedia overcomes my usual laziness). --Last Malthusian 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --dcabrilo 16:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it contains absolutely no objectionable material in accord with Wikipedia's policy. Sebastian Prospero 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason to delete at all, although article could use improvement. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. POV and other "cleanup" problems have no bearing on an article's nomination unless it is inherent in the subject. I don't find this the case here. Ifnord 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and POV-ectomy. AfD is not an appropriate way to handle any perceived POV issues. --Bletch 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I've fully reviewed the article, I really don't see any POV issues. Where's the beef? --Bletch 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read the whole discussion here and follow the links. Durova 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and let it be improved --Petros471 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Someone with more motivation may want to consider an RFC or similar opening of discussion of this group trying to silence gay-rights issues and censor the BCE/CE system from Wikipedia. This smells like the beginnings of a more serious problem. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just remove the POV bit. p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 00:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A topic worthy of Wikipedia, regardless of how poorly it may be drafted at present. Jtmichcock 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and incidentally, the feminine form of "author" is "author." Nandesuka 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, NaconKantari 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and censure nominator for abuse of AfD process for POV-pushing. --FOo 03:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical you don't like something or someone so they must be punished. He had every right to nominate this article for deletion. Just the title alone is Point of View. Dwain 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking of censure simply because of nomination of an article we wish kept. It's the *expressed* motive of the deletion that's the problem, and the means of promoting the deletion. We must assume good faith, but the nominator has made clear through their own words and actions; that they're seeking the deletion of articles based on religious/moral grounds, and are trying to gather a coalition of like-minded voters along sectarian lines to accomplish this. That's what's truly unacceptable here. As an anology, if somebody nominated a Christian rights in Iraq article because they personally opposed Christianity, and solicited votes principally from people they thought shared their religious views (based on religious affiliation), then that would also be unacceptable. We don't want any religious block to start dictating content at Wikipedia. If you don't like the article title, then please go to the talk page, and suggest an alternate name, and try and gain a consensus for a better one. --Rob 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How are "Gay Rights" a POV? What about Women's Rights? Is that POV? Just because some people don't believe people should have rights, doesn't make the term Gay Rights POV? Chanlord 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. FireFox 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible Guild

Vanity/non-notable guild - Rudykog 00:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. -- Daverocks 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems like the original author has tried blanking the page. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A World of Warcraft guild is not, on it's own, notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Wingsandsword 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (although it has to be rewritten completely, the existing content but not the page should be deleted). There's bound to be enough information on the site itself to provide verifiable sources, although of course the source has to be clearly stated. See here. —Simetrical (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but vanity and self-promotion are two things we don't need. Clans are simply unencyclopedic regardless of notability guidelines. Are you saying we should have every garage band in the world as well? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Your opinion is contrary to policy. CSD specifically allows for speedy deletion of unremarkable people. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, nn gaming clan. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Gaming clans are not notable in the least unless they have competed in top-level organized gaming competitions. Listing this "guild" is like listing a university's Ultimate Frisbee club team. FCYTravis 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gaming clan vanity. Written in first person even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's virtually impossible for a gaming clan to be notable. We should have a speedy delete for them. -- Kjkolb 08:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FCYTravis--SarekOfVulcan 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. the wub "?!" 10:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 00:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, gaming clan vanity, not encyclopedic. --Stormie 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. FireFox 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpshack

I'm sure the "college gentlemen" who called it home between 1999-2003 remember it quite fondly, but that doesn't give it encyclopedic notability. Lots of unverifiable opinion about how great the bachelors were and how they really drew the ladies. Textbook vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. A house a few people lived at in college and had fun in is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Wingsandsword 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Probably lying about the ladies. -- JJay 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article, delete content (so delete for the redlink, but allow it to be recreated). There's probably enough publicly-accessible info on the topic to produce a verifiable page. See here. —Simetrical (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) After consideration and discussion with Zoe, change vote to delete. The website is, to my knowledge, the only source for Bumpshack's existence, and it is not reliable. —Simetrical (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely unencyclopedic even if there were 11 zillion verifiable sources available about it. In 5 years, nobody will care that a bunch of college kids had a crash pad. Hell, nobody will care in a year. Or even six months. Bumpshack gets 475 Google hits, of which most are linkspam farms. Unverifiable and utterly unimportant drivel. Borders on speedy fodder. FCYTravis 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, verifiability does not matter when it comes to nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisement page mixed with vanity. Kusma (討論) 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad; I am open to reconsidering the issue if the BumpHotties so request. Billbrock 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - interesting site, but nn.--SarekOfVulcan 09:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You have to be one of the original five people to care a flying rat's behind about this house. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Um, doesn't need to be notable in its field to have an article? Foppery. Proto t c 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JIP. the wub "?!" 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Not really notable enough, and that's coming from an inclusionist - Wezzo 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JIPs entirely accurate assessment. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- using is spamming other articles with this link - Tεxτurε 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, non-encyclopedic. --Stormie 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter princess

Slang phrase and stereotyping. Not remotely encyclopedic even if there is some truth in it... Malcolm Morley 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Durova 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination, and also because of the heavy POV. — JIP | Talk 09:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 11:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary.--Mayur 22:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. bainer (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dodo Magazine

• Non-notable. Delete. Enochlau 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Non Notable is NOT grounds for deletion (or at least thats official Wikipedia policy).

Non Verifiable might do it mind you....... 80.177.152.156 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • That too. Non-verifiable as well. Enochlau 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the school article if possible, otherwise delete. Student publications are seldom encyclopedic. Durova 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable student publication. --StoatBringer 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless publicly-accessible information can be found to make it verifiable. If it can be verified, keep—in my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, and in this case my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to North Sydney Boys' High School. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Zoe. FCYTravis 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless it's really a major part of the school activities.--SarekOfVulcan 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly nn. Has produced a grand total of 5 issues. the wub "?!" 11:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to school article or delete if not worth merging. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notifiable. Ashibaka tock 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. NN, bordering on vanity. --kingboyk 14:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to North Sydney Boys' High School, it could do with some more content to balance out that enormous list of "old boys". --Stormie 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect (because redirects are cheap and fun) to North Sydney Boys' High School. --Alf ^melmac 12:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT a general knowledge base. FCYTravis 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soul cypher

According to article, just a college club. Lotsofissues 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A local college club is just not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article on it's own. --Wingsandsword 00:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but make sure info is sourced to the website. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Billbrock 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plan It X Records

Spam, minor local record label Reid A. 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article survived VfD once already (in 2004, see Talk:Plan It X Records), and I was convinced enough from comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Mice that the label, although not meeting the normal guidelines we might use, is notable enough to keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly verifiable. In my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, and on this issue my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Per Howcheng. It has sufficient notability to keep--Dakota t ^e 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them, or to renominate this article at a later date. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan negationism

• The term is a neologism of difficult understanding.
• Even if the already proposal of renaming it as historical revisionism (Spain or Catolonia) in the sense of

historical revisionism (political) will hold no sense with the text present

• The article is full of factual errors and outlandish claims, which extracted would leave the article nil. If needed I could elaborate
• The intention of the article is, as the last line shows, intentionally derogatory (and perhaps slanderous) of, at least,one political party and a well known journalist
• The appearance of a genocide denial accusation makes the derogatory intentionality even more evident. I know of no person who has denied that during the Spanish Civil War, crimes than in a broad sense could be called genocide happened in both parties. What there is, ever since the start of the war, is discussion about the causes, ways and numerical volume of it.
• Discussion of the war at a whole, and many other historically related issuess has recently flourished again in Spain (it's true partly on /around political issues), but the so termed revisionists,mainly keep their research within scholary acceptable standards, Their conclusions may be controversial in relationship to current mainstream perceptions or affront some political groups, and even might be false -the race is still open-. But that's just the normal play.
• I think, as the so called revisionist school has very few things in common, specific problems are better suited in the articles which touch the matter. Wllacer 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Wllacer 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) : A note to reviewers who vote for merge. I've been researching a little more on the topic. AFAIK it seems it has appeared in the last few weeks, as part of the usual political bashing, regarding some ongoing questions in Catalonia (and Spain in general), and has less to do with the historians' debate as I thought. And it's still to early to kown if the idea will stick. Therefore, in case you vote for merge, i would propose to do it into Politics of Catalonia, after all factual errors has been cleared[reply]

I've put on the article's talk page, a detailed account of the, IMHO, factual errors --Wllacer 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero Google hits. If it got a few Google returns I'd say merge with Spain under Franco but this looks like pure original research. Durova 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Catalunya. Jasmol 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Catalonia or other relevant articles, unless it gets too large to be put in any of them. —Simetrical (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking any evidential basis of widespread support. The editors on the Catalonia article are sure ot have covered this in appropriate depth (which may or may not include ignoring it as sub-trivial). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not merge, because the content isn't any good. Do not redirect, because the name is a total neologism. Spain under Franco should probably deal more with the repression of the nationalities, and if we got enough material on that, it would deserve to be spun out on an article of its own Repression of nationalities in Spain under Franco , but this poorly researched poorly written article is no place to start. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Don't bite the newbies.

• Nominator is improperly conflating a discussion of what they perceive as POV issues in the article, with the issue of whether the article should be deleted or merged. That is wrong. All discussion of POV issuss should have been left on the article's talk page.
• The original author of this article clearly isn't a native speaker of English. But it looks like they tried to confine themself to a neutral point of view. As to nominator's assertion that the title is a neologism? I strongly suspect the original author made their best effort to translate a real term, in Cataln, into English. I think it is unfortunate that the nominator didn't assume good faith, and suggest the actual translation for the Catalan term.
• See the suggestion that the article more properly belonged under a name like Historical revisionism (Catalunya). Nominator has not assumed good faith, and is implying that the creation of an article duplicate content is an attempt to end run policy, rather than considering that it is a shocked newbies attempt to conform with policy. I think these two nominations highlight the importance for nominators to comply with policy and leave their concerns over POV issues on the articles talk page.
• This nomination gives the appearance that the nominator is trying to use wikipedia policies to win the upper hand in a POV dispute. I had a wikipedia contributor, who thought my contributions showed a biased POV. When I asked them to explain how they thought I was showing a bias, they couldn't or wouldn't explain themselves. Instead of engaging in a civil dialogue they started nominating the articles I created for deletion. It was a highly disturbing attack on the wikipedia community, in general. Having gone through this, I urge all wikipedians to make the effort to show good faith, follow the policy, and not let their POV concerns leak into {afd} discussions. And I urge all wikipedians who follow {afd} discussions to be on the lookout for nominators who, consciously or unconsciously, slip POV issues into their nominations. -- Geo Swan 14:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into somewhere like Spain under Franco--Bkwillwm 23:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amphitheatre Anglois

Article without sources on very obscure circus from the 18th century. Google test list 145 hits, including wikipedia mirror sites. Mecanismo | Talk 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clean-up and expand. If not merge somewhere. Why would we want to delete material on early circus history? -- JJay 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an poorly written article which is orphan, uncategorized and filled with unverified information on a very obscure subject from the 18th century. If wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, it should try to host verified/verifiable information on any subject. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You tried to verify it, did you? Because writing style does not matter. -- JJay 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems you voted without taking the time to read the article that was submitted for deletion. I suggest you take a look at it and try to realize what I meant by "poorly written". About the verification, read above. --Mecanismo | Talk 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you require more sources? There are many available. But, please stop these seemingly misguided attempts to remove valuable information from the encyclopedia. Consider using some of the many templates available such as cleanup, or unreferenced. You can insult me all you want, but I intend to try and save as much vital early circus knowledge as I can. -- JJay 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that verifiable information appears to have been provided, keep. In my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, and on this issue policy is not contrary to my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References have been provided, and thus no reason exists to delete the article. The Google test is obviously biased towards current information and completely irrelevant in a case like this. I would welcome more articles on historically popular theatres and entertainment venues. u p p l a n d 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this is truly the first permanent circus, as the Miami U site seems to agree, Strong Keep.--SarekOfVulcan 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep being the first permanent circus is certainly notable and I don't know how the nominator expected Google to cough up thousands of links to 18th century history. It's simply underrepresented, but that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This shouldn't be difficult. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 145 hits for an 18th century circus is a large amount. Comparable to 145,000 hits about any Pokemon. -R. fiend 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks to JJay for adding the references. Ideally, research, beyond Google hit counts, should be done before doing a nomination. --Rob 13:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, no consensus to merge anywhere. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Chair

Unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a joke book. Unsourced. FCYTravis 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination, Wikipedia is not a joke book. Contents might be added as a note into an article on humor or specific types of humor, but a punchline does not a encyclopedia entry make. --Wingsandsword 07:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pretty funny, but Wikipedia is not a joke book, and it's not exactly an encyclopedic article. Cynicism addict 03:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary if it's actually a legitimate phrase as claimed (let them deal with the question :)). Otherwise, delete. —Simetrical (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confidently predict, without even asking at the Beer Parlour, that the advice of most Wiktionary editors will be to "clean up your own messes". Uncle G 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks Jokebook if acceptable (although this may not be possible as it is undergoing VfD there) otherwise delete. This is a perfect example of an anti-joke. Movementarian 07:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jokebook is in the process of being deleted, as per Jimbo 1. Uncle G 08:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned that. Movementarian 08:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah! This is what I get for doing multiple things at once. ☺ Uncle G 09:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete.--SarekOfVulcan 09:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Joke. The Joke article can list various famous jokes but they don't deserve their own articles. — JIP | Talk 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this story is more often described as an urban legend than as a joke -- see Snopes's mention of it here. Suggest merging with urban legend, perhaps in subsection on academic lore. Perodicticus 10:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to urban legend if they want it. It's an urban legend all right. I've got a book which lists this as one. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN as it is actually a joke. I don't think this is a joke book, is it? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's funny, so it's a verified joke, and we should keep everything verifiable. BJAODN, Wikipedia is not a jokebook. --Last Malthusian 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ot transwiki to somewhere else. Same vote, really. -R. fiend 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to BJAODN -- p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has little if any chance of expansion, referencing or illustrating.
• Delete, WP is not repository of jokes. Could be speedy IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 04:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Crew Connection

Vague rumors about a local street gang (?) are completely non-notable, totally fails Google test with 0 hits. Wingsandsword 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Durova 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom, also unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. —Simetrical (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified.--SarekOfVulcan 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.Bjones 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:V. -- JimR 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creighton Lovelace

Was tagged as speedy, but claims notability, so User:Kappa removed the tag. Original reason given was "not notable". howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An otherwise completely non-notable local pastor whose only tenuous claim to fame is some media attention for a sign he put up by his church for a few days? Sounds too non notable for a Wikipedia article. --Wingsandsword 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The rewrite emphasizes the magnitude of the incident and pushes it over the threshold into notability. --Wingsandsword 03:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Kappa that the verified claim of making national news saves it from Speedy territory, but I still don't think it's article material. If anything, could be merged with his church or perhaps another article on Chistian-Islamic religious tensions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. All major US networks covered the story. The Associated Press covered it and it gained attention from international media. I'll be editing the article in a moment. Durova 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisions posted. Durova 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I agree with Durova. The improvements to the article are superb and professional. If a student is doing research, Wikipedia ought to have a dossier or article on this event or personality for information. I would keep it. Creigl 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a formality, we should mention that you created the article in question. Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information provided is verifiable, and Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Anyone who has made it into national news is notable, in my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Durova. Movementarian 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable unpleasant incident. Thanks for the references and proof of media coverage Durova. Danieltown Baptist Church Kappa 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia does have a notability requirement: it's in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we should not carry content that does not belong in an encyclopaedia. This, meanwhile, is a good, verifiable, encyclopaedia article. Good work, Durova. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well done to Durova for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is more of a news article than an encyclopedia article (not in quality, in permanence of fame). Merging into another article may be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice job on the rewrite, Durova, but without the news stories out of Gitmo, this never would have been noticed.--SarekOfVulcan 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without the other scandal this probably wouldn't have happened. Since this did receive international news coverage, I decided a well sourced and objective article is worthy of the encyclopedia. This is a very hot button issue. Hot button issues in general are prone to distortion. Suppose a rumor takes shape that Christian Churches in the United States support desecrating the Koran. A concise account can help put those fears to rest. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. The incident is certainly notable, but the article isn't about Creighton Lovelace. It's about the incident involving the Koran. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Mgm - Wezzo 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it redirects from Danieltown Baptist Church, links from Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and is in the Islam and controversy category. That should be enough for people who want to find it. Durova 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move (not sure where yet), which I gues is the same vote as Keep and rename. This isn't really about Lovelace. Maybe The Koran Needs to be Flushed? Not sure yet. -R. fiend 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a biography by any conceivable stretch of the term. The guy had his 15 minutes of fame (15 seconds, more like) and will almost fade into the woodwork. Briefly mention it in Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, at best. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibrán Hernández

Does not appear to be a notable composer, not much information available QQ 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) *Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete upon a stronger look. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to have a following. Billbrock 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely looks verifiable, so keep. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my recent acquaintance with certain facets of Wikipedia policy with which I was not previously familiar, I reluctantly change my vote to delete unless evidence is provided that his songs were widely played or sold a substantial amount. —Simetrical (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search for his name came up with 19 results none of which indicated notability [5]. Nor does the article suggest that he is of any note. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as virtually invisible on Google. Not even to counter systemic bias, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable. Eusebeus 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless evidence is given as to how he qualifies under WP:MUSIC. -R. fiend 18:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified. I will add to the chorus (forgive the pun) that I would change my vote if some source provided noteworthiness. Ifnord 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted by User:Zoe. FCYTravis 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Solano

Totally good guy and local celebrity though he may well be, I can't see that he's notable enough (yet) for inclusion in an encyclopedia: so recommend delete Staffelde 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Embarrassing-- JJay 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete It's interesting; I heard about the DPI conference, and this gave me more information.
• Look unverifiable, so tentative delete. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom; college kids. Billbrock 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mariñelarena

Non-notable, just an independent filmmaker, same for his three short films De entre los zapatos, Historia de una madre, and Fe (Short film). Vizcarra 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, fails Google test. Unnoticed by media. Non-notable. --Vizcarra 01:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your link goes to a talk page, not a policy. This page, which says that unremarkable people can be speedy deleted, is official policy. Delete, fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct to note that my stated reasoning is invalid in this instance. I was not aware of the policy at the time I originally commented. My vote is now reluctantly delete unless evidence can be provided that one or more of the individual's films was widely screened. However, since the CFD vote for some bizarre reason only applied to people (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal#P1 .28Expeditious deletion for articles not asserting notability.29), it seems that my voting to keep the movie pages (provided their existence is backed up by sources) is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: keep the movie articles if they can be verified. —Simetrical (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-noteworthy and possible vanity. Ifnord 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as minor, and as probable vanity. And Simetrical should stop confusing his personal beliefs with policy. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nomination. Gaius Cornelius 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dressage queen

Similar to Hunter princess, dictionary definition and slur. Durova 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (if they'll take it) and delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Simetrical (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Billbrock 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I would say transwiki to Wiktionary, but I just don't think they will want it. Movementarian 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, seems like someone really hates this type of women. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologistic dicdef of no provable widespread currency Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a useful assition from a usually worthwhile contributor Malcolm Morley 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary -- p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. I have protected the page with a {{deletedpage}} notice to stop a re-post. Harro5 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warbucket

Another forum. Was previously deleted on 6 September as vanity. Since then it has been WP:XD'd but someone reverted it. Ashibaka tock 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wingsandsword 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Warbucket + forum gets 922 Google hits. Lots of forumcruft, no assertion of broader impact. FCYTravis 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as {{db-repost}} / CSD G4 Jamie 11:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and speedy as repost if it is indeed a repost. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 boldly redirected to Weather by Proto. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The weather

Lacks notability Hirudo 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there does seem to be a band with may meet the notability criteria, but it's not the one currently shown in the article Hirudo 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if no sources are added, otherwise keep. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to weather. NN. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Billbrock 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to weather. At the moment, this is speedy delete article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 09:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless significantly expanded.--SarekOfVulcan 09:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Band fails to meet even one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Boldly redirected to weather. Proto t c 10:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oseh Shalom BBYO

Individual chapters of organizations are inherently non-notable. Delete  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jasmol 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, almost certainly verifiable. Wikipedia doesn't have or need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and you can stop waving that bloody talkpage at our faces. Until it's unanimous policy, I could not care less what it says. --Agamemnon2 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I was merely citing it as my own personal reasoning, not as policy. You are, of course, free to vote according to your own reasoning, as you have. —Simetrical (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Chapters of youth organizations are even more inherently non-notable. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. FCYTravis 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 08:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or I go create Orono Assembly 38 IORG. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 09:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, student organisation vanity. No one outside the organisation cares about this. — JIP | Talk 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 sppedy delete. Hoax/vandalism. -R. fiend 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Zamboni Act of 1943

No references, no sources, no Google hits, no pages linking to it, almost no substance to the article itself, and no relevance beyond a text dump that appears to be prone to vandalism. Ziggurat 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a hoax. Alr 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; patent hoax/nonsense. MCB 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probable hoax, though I can't imagine what the point of such a hoax might be. No relevant Googles for "Zamboni Act", and the Zamboni wasn't developed until 1949, making such an act impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost certainly a hoax, totally unsourced, utterly fails Google test. --Wingsandsword 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete "penis sheath"? Someone was bored. Billbrock 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete quick. The Zamboni was not invented until 1949[6] which makes this a hoax or patent nonsense.--Dakota t ^e 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete hoax. —Simetrical (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- hogwash. Reyk 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but hockey hoaxes always get me to chuckle. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Lenahan's comment above.--SarekOfVulcan 09:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (There's no CSD for complete bollocks like this, much though I wish there was...) Jamie 11:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax of staggering pointlessness. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per User:DakotaKahn. Durova 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to speedy this as a hoax/vandalism. The jury is in, in any case. -R. fiend 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnid (band)

Article on extremely obscure band that only released a demo in 2005 and isn't listed on allmusic guide Mecanismo | Talk 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very obscure band, written in the first person plural, no less. Chris the speller 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN band. Lose the picture, too. Alr 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete page unless sources are provided. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, but it does need verifiability, which this lacks. —Simetrical (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is only one of the various aspects where the article fails to justify its existence. For example, analyze the article on the light of WP:MUSIC. It fails to satisfy every single guideline listed there. On the other hand, let's not forget that an entertainer's notoriety is directly proportional to it's importance --Mecanismo | Talk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, WP:MUSIC is a notability argument. —Simetrical (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and lament again the lack of a speedy criterion for band vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per above  J\/\/estbrook       20:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination, and wishing there was a Speedy Delete criteria for vanity pages of bands.
• Do Not Delete This bands page is as valid of an entry as any other band on Wikipedia, and deserve their place just as any other band. Just because it's not famous doesn't mean we should delete it. Psychomonkey 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver M Grech

Vanity page of member of an extremely obscure band Mecanismo | Talk 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wretchedly obscure. Take the band away, too. Chris the speller 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alr 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete band vanity  J\/\/estbrook       02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity article for a garage band. --Wingsandsword 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Billbrock 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifiable. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Databasing"?--SarekOfVulcan 09:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. FireFox 22:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Commons

POV, unencyclopedic article about a non-notable college dorm dining hall; delete. MCB 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with Rutgers. Jasmol 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified, otherwise keep. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Wackymacs 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (if there's any verifiable content) until such time as a Brower Commons section in the Rutgers article gets so big that it needs to bud off. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• don't delete it! a link in the rutgers entry will suffice, but to merge the articles would be to deprive brower of the full explanation and attention that it deserves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.175.75 (talk • contribs) (first and only edit from this IP
• Delete the campuscruft — zero evidence of notability outside of Rutgers, hence the lack of unbiased sources and, by extension, encyclopedic merit. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:50, Dec. 27, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Scientific Linux. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi Linux

This article is trying to promote some type of computer program. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Scientific_Linux Notable Linux distribution discussed in another article and in other articles about Linux, Google test shows over 39,000 hits, name changed from Fermi Linux to Scientific Linux in early 2004 though.
• Probably keep, it looks very verifiable. If no refs can be provided after giving {{original research}} a chance for some time, then delete. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The FAQ probably shouldn't be here, for example...--SarekOfVulcan 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Scientific Linux. Once the FAQ are removed, however, I'm afraid ther isn't much left to merge. --DrTorstenHenning 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Scientific Linux. A lead and a full non-FAQ section is more than "not much left". - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merged and redirected. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sean Curtin 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arching

Article filled with pure nonsense and original research with a touch of vanity Mecanismo | Talk 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article filled with pure vanity and original nonsense with a touch of research. Chris the speller 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Jasmol 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unverifiable. —Simetrical (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fast as humanly possible. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Computerjoe 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcomage tribute

Article on obscure fan-tribute software which is still being developed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Mecanismo | Talk 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, will probably become verifiable soon enough when their demonstration becomes available. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Mecanismo | Talk 13:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. ManoaChild 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, recreate after release if notable.--SarekOfVulcan 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not yet verifiable, so does not deserve article yet. Is also promoting the game. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is not verifiable now and is unliklely to be anything other than indiscriminate collecting of information in the future. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Until published, it's vapourware. Ifnord 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivitive

Non-noteable band. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Garage band. Alr 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excruciatingly NN Chris the speller 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'reigning from England'??? Does the Queen know about this? Jasmol 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Information is unverifiable. —Simetrical (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable Garage Band. --Wingsandsword 03:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comeuppance

• Delete This article has been transwikied to en.wiktionary.com Chris the speller 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Simetrical (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Movementarian 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per transwiki--SarekOfVulcan 09:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Revenge of the Mutant Camels. Failing that, delete per nomination. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transwikied; no chance at becoming a encyclopedic article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artrouble

Article on obscure expression. Google test lists 463 hits, including wikipedia and it's mirror sites. Mecanismo | Talk 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable neologism, borderline vanity/advert. Jasmol 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary if they'll take it. Either way, delete, WINAD. —Simetrical (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete from article "word invented"? how bout no original research  J\/\/estbrook       04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pre jasmol.--SarekOfVulcan 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland High School (Ohio)

Article on obscure, non-notable highschool which is badly written, orphan and uncategorized Mecanismo | Talk 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN school. Alr 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a high school. Has any high school ever been deleted? Are all noms masochists? -- JJay 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the job of encyclopedias to serve as directories on highschools. Specially obscure, not-notable and only locally meaningfull schools like the one which the article was on --Mecanismo | Talk 19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad you have an unbiased opinion on the subject and Ashland. Try telling that to all the Keep voters below. -- JJay 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been long asserted that popularity doesn't mean correctness. This is one example. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is a compilation of all human knowledge; thus, the mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I exist. Therefore, by your argument, I am worthy of having an encyclopedia article on me. My My cat also exists. He deserves an article too. I hope this comment helps to clarify your views on the subject --Mecanismo | Talk 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precedent. Can one high school be much more notable than another? Jasmol 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• They are all very notable. -- JJay 03:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes any highschool notable and therefore worthy of encyclopedia articles, specially this blurb article? --Mecanismo | Talk 03:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thay have histories. They influence people's lives. They are the centers of their communities. They have big budgets. They compete in sports. They have famous alumni. Stuff happens there. That's all notable. Ask other voters to provide other reasons. -- JJay 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• and regarding this afd, where in fact does this article lists information on history, the budgets, sports competitions, the influence it had on people's lives and even about "stuff" happening there? In the future please have the common sense of basing your votes on concrete and objective proof --Mecanismo | Talk 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All that takes time. These articles don't just spring up overnight, you know. -- JJay 22:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, they don't spring up overnight. And they don't spring up overmonth or even overyear. I challenge you to go look at school articles over a year old, and see for yourself how few get much past the stage they originally appeared at. It is clear to me that inclusionists for the most part do not wish to concern themselves with the long-term viability of an article, and instead support the thesis that more is always better. Denni ☯ 02:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? That the project should shutdown? Every article not completed should get cut? No stubs allowed? Are you advocating a blanket purge of every article that you don't consider viable? For my part, I'm willing to allow editors the requisite time to build these school articles- ten or twenty years if need be. I assume the schools and wikipedia will still be here during that timeframe. -- JJay 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My, you're good at setting up straw men. But I will take one of your wheat guys and say yes to no stubs for non-notable schools. West Armpit High School will be a one-sentence stub for as many decades as you care to wait, because quite frankly, Jjay, no one gives a beaver's backside about this school except a few of its former students, who probably aren't even aware of Wikipedia's existence, or if they are, couldn't be bothered to improve the article. I am willing to accept school articles which present well as articles, but I have no patience for articles which are half-baked placeholders for maybe maybe something happening down the road. Maybe. This kind of article just makes us look incompetent. Denni ☯ 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect where you stand. In fact, I would agree with you, except that there are no non-notable schools, that is nonsensical nonsense designed to fool the uninitiated. They are all notable, even PS Armpit 157. They are worth many beavers, front and back, cooked and baked. And that even extends to Canadian schools, where beaver, I've heard, may be easier to come by. -- JJay 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Inadvertently useful: the article indirectly cautions parents where not to send their kids. Billbrock 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though needs more verificaton it does meet WP:SCH's new proposal.Gateman1997 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per begrudging consensus that high schools are notable. FCYTravis 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a lot of highschools which aren't remotely notable and will never be heard of outside their region. This is so obvious I fail to understand how it keeps being mentioned. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete please it does not make any sense to keep this Gazpacho 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Ashland, Ohio which could use some more content. Clear past precedent to keep high schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools affect many lives around the world, and to say that an article about (for example) Che Guevara is more relevant to a particular person at a particular moment than an article about Ashland High School takes away the original meaning and beauty of wikipedia. 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.107.128 (talk • contribs)

Grocery stores influence at least as many lives, but I certainly hope they turn into articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are some great articles on grocery stores. Nice point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bored1002 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what grocery store did you guys graduate from? -- JJay 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not forget about the people who are homeschooled. If this article passess based on the "graduating", "life impact" and other arguments, maybe we should start listing articles on the homes where homeschooled kids lived. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you submit those articles, I promise to look at them with an open mind. -- JJay 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Alumni are all extremely notable within Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bored1002 (talk • contribs)

• Comment local notoriety doesn't justify an article on any encyclopedia --Mecanismo | Talk 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per high school precedent.--SarekOfVulcan 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per consensus on WP:SCH, if sufficient suitable information can be found. If not, merge into article on the school district (and if one doesn't exist, start it). Proto t c 10:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn high school. Any interesting stuff about schools would be POV. Catchpole 11:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Stubby in the extreme, but they've got a referenced alumnus. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was that there wasn't any consensus and that it had resulted in school deletionists talking among themselves. Eusebeus 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a high school doesn't deserve an article unless it has fame well beyond its own community Edrigu 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, local notoriety justifies inclusion in an unlimited encylopedia providing universal access to knowledge. Kappa 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — valid high school. — RJH 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought we were over this. CalJW 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Kurt Weber 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where have you been in the school discussion, beyond launching cheap shots against other hard-working Wikipedians? How about bowing out until you have digested WP:CIVIL? Denni ☯ 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We'll have this whole site flooded with articles about high schools, bowling teams, malls, and anything else members have be part of but isn't notable. Unless something happened at this high school or someone more important than a football start attended it, it is not notable. There's nothing here that can't be expressed at this school's website. Roman Soldier 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A famous alum is sufficient to establish notability, given past precedent on schools. -Colin Kimbrell 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and please do not encourage trolling its not good Yuckfoo 07:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and verifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no credible sources on which to base an article redstucco 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kionic

advertisement.I vote Delete Deyyaz 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advert for non-notable company. Jasmol 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Ad. Billbrock 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be verified. If someone wants to rewrite it in a non-advertising form, though, with references, it should be allowed to stay. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per jasmol. I don't see a rewrite making it notable, but I could be suprised...--SarekOfVulcan 09:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable company. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because non-notable companies are functionally unverifiable, the only source of information is uusally the company itself (hence WP:CORP). Although strictly we could get their returns from the tax office, that would be original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless I start hearing about this company popular advertising venues  J\/\/estbrook       20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nb ridaz

non notable band  J\/\/estbrook       02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agreed. Lose the picture, too. Alr 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Small time, but they did actually get some songs onto the charts, which makes them at least mildly encyclopedic and notable, adding sources would be good though. --Wingsandsword 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep pending verification of charts. They have an All Music Guide entry, but no bio. Verify and cleanup. FCYTravis 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information Link to Billboard music charts. According to this, they made it on the charts as was listed. --Wingsandsword 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per FCYTravis, if it's cleaned up before the end of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Allmusic.com shows series of hits. Capitalistroadster 20:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They're verifiable and noteworthy. The article may be terrible, but that's not criteria for delete. Ifnord 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have cleaned up the article and added the Allmusic.com reference. Should be renamed to NB Ridaz. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on Wingsandsword billboard finding. Good call, Wingsandsword --Mecanismo | Talk 12:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.

Myron Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Evans

Delete. Article appears to be original research, and subject of article is non-notable. Srleffler 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying this a bit: the article has been rewritten to focus on Evans' biography. It is no longer "original research", and it may well be the case that Evans is a notable crackpot. Those who read the article early in the afd process might want to take another look and see if it changes their vote.--Srleffler 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom; vanity as well. Billbrock 03:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link to the argument about Wikipedia not needing notability requirements makes the above essentially an argument for deleting this page. If even the page's supporters admit that the subject is not notable, the page is surely deletable under current policy.--Srleffler 06:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my original vote, I was unaware that speedy deletion was mandated for articles not asserting the importance of an individual. I'm not happy with this policy, frankly, and I don't think it actually has consensus at this point (it only ever passed with 74% support, less than that required to make someone an admin), but I recognize that we can't very well allow individual editors to question policy because they don't think it has consensus (WP:IAR aside).

So let me change my reasoning in this case: Dr. Evans appears to have some hundreds of Google hits (some of the 1,150 appear to be talking about another Myron Evans but most seem to be referring hto the man in question), he has 59 Google Scholar hits. He is not, of course, profoundly notable, but he's certainly modestly notable at least. My vote remains keep. —Simetrical (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be vanity, content is disputed. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, not speedy. This is probably pseudoscience but appears to have close to sufficent visibility to be worth documenting. It has 10000 Google hits (but only 150 unique hits). Claimed books do exist, though publisher appears to be some sort of vanity press. ManoaChild 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the current article is an unverifiable laudatio for a crackpot. Writing an encyclopedic article about Evans can as well start with an empty edit box. He has some Usenet and Web notability, in diverse lists of crackpots. Compare point 25 in John Baez' crackpot index. --Pjacobi 09:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, per citation in Google Scholar. Much cleanup needed, and verification of Civil List Pension and reasons therefore.--SarekOfVulcan 09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per User:ManoaChild. PJM 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at least in part a copyvio (first paragraph comes from Americanantigravity.com. I suspect based on the lack of wikification and the general tone that the rest if copyvio'ed as well.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per SarekOfVulcan comment. J. D. Redding 14:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided - the article as written is grossly unencyclopaedic and the chances of some scientist nobody has ever heard of developing the Grand Unifying Theory at that age is very small indeed (most scientists seem to do their best and most visionary work when young). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Peeper 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a hoax, or whacked, or both. Eusebeus 17:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• small Thimble full of keep rewrite about the person, mention the theory and link outside WP, else delete  J\/\/estbrook       20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Ifnord 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He really did win the Harrison Memorial Prize in 1978, he really is (was) the editor of ISBN 0471304999 a very boring and worthy book, plus some others. Just becasuse he later came up with a possibly dubious GUT doesntmean we should not have an article on him. Rich Farmbrough 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Edwardian 08:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia's own definition of an Encyclopedia is 'An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge.' If this article is not knowledge highly relevant to the whole human race, I'll eat my hat! Solmil 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like your hat served with tartar sauce or plain? --ScienceApologist 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my thoughts exactly. Note that User:Solmil is the original author of the disputed article, which is not, unfortunately, an attempted hoax.---CH 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The prize and scholarship makes him notable, though I'd be happier if the article were more heavily focused on him, and if the section on his theory included language indicating that it's not widely accepted within the scientific community. -Colin Kimbrell 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Certainly, Evans is a classic crackpot. (Einstein and Cartan are rolling in their graves.) But is he even notable? The Harrison Memorial Prize and apparently indistinguishable Mendola Memorial Prize are awarded annually "to a British Chemist who is under 30 years of age for promising original investigations in chemistry", according to Royal Society of Chemistry list of prizes. Is this really a sufficiently notable prize? RSC lists a very long list of prizes at their website, check it out. As for a scholarship, I dare say most commentators have recieved one of those at one time or another. I have been utterly unable to verify the claims about affiliation with Cornell Theory Center, etc., although this is mentioned at a large number of websites like American Antigravity, Free Energy News whose reliability is... suspect :-) I did find however that Myron Evans is one of these charming fellows who likes to take legal action to discourage debunkers. Check this out: Myron Evans Censorship Rebuttal. The "AIAS" which Evans mentions is something called the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies, an organization directed by himself. At least some of the prizes he claims on his C.V. appear to have been awarded by... AIAS! Hence the need for independent verification of alleged notability. The UW library does have three monographs coauthored by Myron Wyn Evans. All in all, it seems very clear that if we decide that Evans' contributions to chemistry are notable (I'd guess they are not, unless we want to have a biography of everyone who has coauthored a technical book, but I'm not a chemist), then the article needs to be rewritten to clarify the dubious nature of Evans's crackpot claims about free-energy and his so-called "theory".---CH 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was using "scholarship" in the sense of "body of scholarly effort produced by an academic". In particular, I was referring to some of his books and papers. The article could stand a few edit sessions, there's no question about that, but I think a deletion might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -Colin Kimbrell 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, we might be getting off the track, but did you notice that your Google Scholar search includes papers from Evans own site which apparently have not been published? So evidently you must be cautious in using Google Scholar to verify claims in suspect WP articles: there is certainly no guarantee that what you turn up there is even referreed, much less appeared in a respectable research journal. (Even then, of course, as the Bogdanov affair shows, problems can arise.) Also, AFAIK there is no "Evans lemma in gtr" except in his mind, and I think I know the gtr literature pretty well. What are your standards for notability? Simply having published a scholarly book or some papers? I think we need to maintain a higher standard than that, while perhaps not setting the bar as high as Brittanica. Still, I don't think you've answered the question: I see evidence for the dirty bathwater, but where's the baby?---CH 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of those books and papers are self-published and/or self-referential, but others are legitimate (like this one, for example). The question is whether there are enough legitimate accomplishments remaining after a thorough sort to make Mr. Evans notable. I personally believe that there are, but of course you're free to differ. -Colin Kimbrell 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'd like to see a higher standard of notability, but recognize that many do not agree. I can suggest a compromise solution for what to do with this article, although I hesitate to suggest it because I've had a bad experience in a similar context.

Question for all participants in this discussion: would you find it acceptable if some user were to rewrite the article to describe Evan's work in chemistry, which appears to be "mainstream" (it would be best if whoever does this were a chemist! or at least checks with a knowledgeable chemist), plus the Harrison Prize, followed by a brief WP:NPOV description of what I would call his "cranky" claims? It should be possible to briefly describe those claims in NPOV fashion, adding a dry disclaimer such as: this "theory" appears to be little known in physics, and is apparently regarded as cranky by those physicists who do know about it. (Whoever did this would probably want to omit the "scare quotes", but I can't bring myself to apply the word "theory" to these particular claims without qualification!) Keep the external links so that readers easily find both Evan's writings and critiques of his writings.

Assuming there is a consensus that this would be a reasonable compromise, someone could volunteer to make the changes. But probably only an admin should volunteer for this kind of content cleanup job!---CH 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. First, I would want to know if Evans is actually notable as a chemist. If not, he may still be a notable crackpot, but in that case the article would have to focus on his theories, his efforts to promote them, and the scientific community's view of his work. In other words, if he is notable, the article should focus on discussing whatever it is that makes him notable.

I don't see why you think it would be necessary or even helpful for an admin to do this. Admins are not that different from ordinary editors.--Srleffler 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. If he is notable - for whatever reason, including being a notable crackpot or controversial theorist - he deserves an article. The quality of the article is not really relevant; there is sufficent content and AfD is not cleanup. I simply don't see enough to convince me that he is notable. His tendency to self publish and self award actually works against him here, because it makes it difficult to separate out his actual accomplishments. The Harrison Memorial award seems to be significant, but it isn't clear to me that it is important enough by itself to justify an article. ManoaChild 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I suggested obtaining confirmation from a neutral chemist that Evans could reasonably be considered notable for his chemistry work. Again tending to want to set the notability bar higher than some, I doubt Evans should be notable purely as a crank, since the only references I could find to his "theory" were on crank websites, which I suspect are very little known except to the tiny tiny minority of freelunchers. However, I am searching for a compromise with Colin, so while I myself would not include a biography of Evans, including one emphasizing his mainstream(?) work at the expense of his obscure crackpottery still seems to me an acceptable compromise.---CH 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the re-write proposed by CH, is the amount of watching, reverting, RfCing, RFAring (and sobbing) which is needed to keep it this way. Look at our fine perpetuum mobiles at Adams Motor, Motionless Electrical Generator, or Testatika. The antigravity department at Hutchinson effect and Lifter. Theory department at Scalar field theory, Autodynamics, Hydrino theory, Electric Universe. O.K. most of them seem to be under control in the moment. But they are always a threat to Wikipedia's reputability [7].

Pjacobi 13:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CH's suggestion sounds like a good idea to me. -Colin Kimbrell 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorenson BioScience, Inc.

Looks like advertising. Text is cut and paste from "about" section of company website. I searched the NY Times archive since 1981 and the company was not mentioned. Thunk 03:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, however, if the text is cut-and-paste, it's a copyvio. In that case (I haven't checked) it's a Speedy. -Lifthrasir 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perhaps the company is notable, but this blurb is full of marketing speech and certainly doesn't need to be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and cue the vikings. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete send the vikings home, cue the CapitolOne Raiders :)  J\/\/estbrook       20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is articles for deletion. You want Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianism

Dicdef. Alr 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Simetrical (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary or expand on it. I'm sure there is an interesting background behind Canadianism, the problem is whether anybody will research it. Croat Canuck 05:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Perhaps a redirect to Culture of Canada could work as well? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. HistoryBA 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, or possible redirect to Culture of Canada, as per MacGyverMagic WilyD 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. Do not redirect or keep. It's a straight-up definition and rightfully so: "Ottoman" is an example of a Canadianism. Eusebeus 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the article history, this already existed as a redirect to Canadian English until December 1, at which point somebody created what stands there now. Correct that it's essentially a dicdef (and I'm not sure it can ever be more than that), but I'd be more in favour of recreating the redirect that already existed before December than deleting. Bearcat 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do both. Redirect to Canadian English (as per Bearcat) and transwiki if need be. Luigizanasi 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Culture of Canada. The term deals with customs not language. This is likely what the editor of 1 December meant to do. -- Perfecto 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Culture of Canada. Canadianism 04:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep!? Hello! I was initially responsible for changing this redirect: my intention was/is to add to it and treat it as a subarticle of sorts for some of the top-level notions in Culture of Canada, Canadian English (which can be pruned and also has a section on 'Britishisms'), Canadian French, Canadian slang (huge!), et al. A la dictionary (etc.): the term deals with customs and language, and the spartan definition (as is) is only meant as a placeholder until I can muster the time and cull and collate the other articles for germane information. E Pluribus Anthony 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organic perspective

Original research at best. On the borderline of speedy delete? Jasmol 03:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination: Original Research. --Wingsandsword 04:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic is certainly relevant, but the content of the article seems completely worthless. Redirect to Organic food or something. —Simetrical (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essay. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgm. Pavel Vozenilek 04:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused HTML decimal character references

Anonymous contributor to List of HTML decimal character references (which is also up for deletion) did not like that their invalid codes were deleted from that article, so they created this one. The codes in question are entirely invalid, not just unused. mjb 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Content is self-evident based on the contents of List of HTML decimal character references, so the article need have no separate life of its own. —Simetrical (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, information already in Character encodings in HTML. Gazpacho 07:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content can be pretty much inferred from the long list and the ASCII table.--SarekOfVulcan 08:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent POV fork of an anyway trivial topic. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as false information, unless proof of the contrary is provided. - Liberatore(T) 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lovely to look at but meaningless. Ifnord 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and Teenage Brains

This article was previously speedied due to copyvio. I speedied it again, but the author has come forward to resolve the copyvio issue (see talk page). I'd still classify it as original research. Jasmol 04:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Original research. The subject is of course serious: but the category belongs in Ficciones. Billbrock 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think deleteing this article would be stretching the meaning of the original research policy. The article lists numerous references and there has been no indication, either here or on the talk page, that they are incorrect or do not deal with the subject of the article. Movementarian 06:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing my vote and am declaring myself Neutral. I still think that this stretched the original research rule, but this article displays a large amount of POV bias including the title. Movementarian 03:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Movementarian, but express reservations about accuracy nontheless. Neutral. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not an article for an encyclopaedia. Delete Proto t c 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, doesn't draw any conclusions, just presents the reader with questions squell 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I disagree with Movementarian: this may be well-sourced original research, but it's still original research. The conclusions are the author's own. - squibix 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any worthwhile information should be added in Alcohol :: Supergolden 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Agree that the information should be added to Alchohol entry. This viewpoint on alchohol usage is definately out there and can be addressed in an encyclopedic fashion but this particular work definately needs to be edited to meet NPOV standards. Epolk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. This has some content of merit, but the approach and the title are wrong. A merge of the encyclopaedic content is undoubtedly justified. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has references, not original research, and is a valid article of merit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7th Floor Crew

nn music group. Their website is a myspace page. No allmusic or artistdirect pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement and vanity page for yet another non-notable band. --Wingsandsword 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the benchmark for band vanity, a Myspace page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this probably shouldn't be a music article as much as an article about the Miami Hurricanes flap about the explicit rap song recorded by members of its football team a few years back. It was covered on ESPN.com and caused the athletic director to issue a public apology. Very notable, should be cleaned up and kept if I don't get around to cleaning it up first. A redirect to the proper Miami Hurricanes page may be in order as well, but I feel this is a notable enough event/group to warrant its own article. --badlydrawnjeff 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So write a one-paragraph addition to the Miami University article. As a music group, these guys fail WP:MUSIC. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • But they're notable, meeting WP:BIO's "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," as reported by ESPN.com. The point that the article, in its current incarnation, focuses on their music and not their notabilty is a problem best dealt with via cleanup, not deletion. --badlydrawnjeff 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best, this should be incorporated per Zoe's point above. Eusebeus 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have rewrote the article to reflect the notability. --badlydrawnjeff 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was a news event and somewhat of a scandal. It is not a commercial group and there is no money to be made from the song.
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Fairly well known within the college football world. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• weak redirect - while a lot was written about this "group" at the time, I'm not sure if every scandal involving athletes or sports teams deserves its own page. It may be more usefull to have a page Scandals involving the University of Miami (or involving the U of M football team or athletic department) or Scandals involving the Minnesota Vikings (rather than a page devoted to the "love-boat" thing earlier in the season). Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said below- a newsworthy scandal, and definitely not an advertisement for the band; it's only one song, and it's free. --AnthonyA7 05:37, 25 December 2005 (ECT)

This was a big scandal. Nobody really thinks of them as a group anymore than the 85 Bears.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. FCYTravis 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) This is not a noteworthy article. It is simply a self glorifying "bio" written by a man trying unsucessfully to seek public office. This person has never even had a real job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.65.232 (talk) 14:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Lott

Claim to notability is being student body president. Flimsy, at best. Reads like a glowing vanitybio - "is considered a possible candidate for public office." FCYTravis 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Lott was the first black student body president at the University. That is highly notable in history, especially considering the past of Ole Miss. Wikipedia BIO qualifies if: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Lott's being elected the first African American president at Ole Miss is newsworthy.Redwood201 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was "notable in history", then please show us where it was added to the historical record. Please cite reliable sources that documented this. Uncle G 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [8] or [9], but especially this piece [10] that ran in the Christian Science Monitor. Redwood201 04:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not here. In the article. Uncle G 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Claim to notability is being the first African-American student body president at a large southern public university with a tempestuous history of race relations. I would hardly say breaking the color barrier is flimsy. BarryManil0w 4:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then it should be easy for you to cite reliable sources such as national press coverage of this particular achievement. National press coverage is one of our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How's The February 26, 2000 edition of The New York Times: Student Body Elects First Black Leader suit you? BarryManil0w 4:59 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There ya go. That's what we're looking for. Nomination withdrawn. FCYTravis 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:CLW CLW 09:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blair harris

Looks like an NN band, the author couldn't even be bothered to capitalize it properly...Delete, plausibly Speedily stillnotelf has a talk page 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Comment: not a band - individual, hence speedyable CLW)[reply]

• Delete Vanity page of a non-notable small-time garage band. --Wingsandsword 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also tagged for speedy, as no notability is claimed, nothing in allmusic.com Chris the speller 07:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Phobia

"Phobia is an RuneScape clan which was founded in early January of 2005." Not notable and not encyclopedic. Nominator votes delete. Bikeable 04:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanity. Delete. -Lifthrasir 06:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all MMORPG clans everywhere. — JIP | Talk 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn.--SarekOfVulcan 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above  J\/\/estbrook       20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity -- p_b1999 ^{(Talk|Contribution)} 01:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Projectai.com

126k Alexa ranking. Site too low traffic to be verifiable. delete Lotsofissues 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lack of visitors. Doesn't warrant separate article. Link in Microsoft Flight Simulator should suffice. Remove from List of websites. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sub-trivial Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable --Petros471 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rowan

Got here from Special:Lonelypages, and I can't find any verification that this person exists. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax, possibly meriting a speedy. Zero relevant Google hits for "'Ben Rowan' Australia." The article's ambiguous statement "Ben studied art in America he attended the famous Art School in Westport, Connecticut." is suspicious for its vagueness. I found three art schools in Westport, CT: one in dance, one in music, and one for children.[11] There was a Westport Art School which appears to be long defunct. The most recent reference I can locate is 1960. [12] There is no longer any fine arts program in Westport, CT. [13] The hazy chronology suggests that he studied art sometime after 1968. I should add that the article claims Czechoslovakian heritage but the name is Irish. Durova 08:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Unless people put hoaxes in their Deviant Art profile, I think this artist may exist. Unfortunately, the whole things is not verifiable. Is there a Wiki Art project we can refer this to? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider DeviantART much of a source when it comes to verifying the facts or existance of someone. Anyone can set up an account in seconds and write pretty much anything. I'm listed as someone's favourite photographer there too, but that doesn't mean I'm really recognised as a photography professional. DA is a great site, and a lot of fun to use and browse, but shouldn't be used to verify information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check those four hits at Deviant Art. They don't refer to an artist by this name. They're just incidental occurrences of Ben and Rowan in the same work. None of them are in the medium that this article claims is Ben Rowan's primary work. Durova 18:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable per Mgm Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not hoax, at least he is extremelly obscure. Not worthy of an encyclopedia entry --Mecanismo | Talk 16:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no verifiable evidence on Google see [14]. Two Australian stories came up in a search for Ben Rowan in Australian media both related to a baker who made roo pies for Australia Day. If this guy exists, he is not a well known artist in Australia. Macquarie.net came up with the roo pie guy but no artists. Webster World came up with no hits on this guy at all. Capitalistroadster 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Roisterer 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. Jgritz 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The artist is not a hoax, if it is not against any copyrights I can post a picture. The piece was done in 1979 so yes the old art school that it mentions is probably gone by now. I intend to do more about the medium if I can find the information, as you can see it is a hard topic to research, so therefore SHOULD be kept on Wikipedia. Redcrystal 09:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. bainer (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pole-Land Militia

User:Xyro TR1 web site. Some kind of forum, but the article is two lines long and hard to understand what it is about. -- Fplay 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless notability is determined.--SarekOfVulcan 10:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just another website. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same user also promoted some small host he runs himself as well (Unnatural Wave). He's got no edits besides the articles on his own websites and his userspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this context-less, neo-patent nonsense. Ifnord 21:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (nomination withdrawn) (closing per WP:IAR). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois v. Gates

nn court case. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the case went to the state supreme court it set no precedent. Durova 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per information added since my original vote. Precedent setting United States Supreme Court case. Durova 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why not speedy? --Silent Lamb 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This indepth summary will greatly help anyone studying the fourth amendment, landmark test established.Bvcxz 06:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It claims "This case is a landmark case in the evolution of probable cause and search warrants". Is there evidence to the contrary? Chris the speller 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if you think notability should be required, any case that reaches a U.S. Circuit Court or higher is inherently notable, because it determines a legal precedent that in principle affects millions of people. —Simetrical (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Durova. Billbrock 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have cleaned up and added reference. Capitalistroadster 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per new info in article.--SarekOfVulcan 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, US Supreme Court cases. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as currently written Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest User:Woohookitty withdraw the nomination because the article creator saved the page before adding the most important paragraph. Durova 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will withdraw the nomination, but according to the speedy keep guidelines, it can only be removed if we have no delete votes but we have 1 delete vote. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Should I go ahead and write the article for Spinelli as referenced in Gates? Don't want to put the work in if it will be deleted. I'm new and not sure of the standards here.Bvcxz 19:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, by all means. This article is going to be kept. See my message on your talk page. Durova 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atso A. Eerikäinen

Autobiography, against WP policy. -- Eagle^amn 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article with no point whatsoever. -- King of Hearts 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn, likely advertising. --Fire Star 05:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also tagged it for speedy deletion, as it asserts no importance Chris the speller 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is more like a CV than an article. — JIP | Talk 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability established.--SarekOfVulcan 10:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete article reads like citation entries  J\/\/estbrook       20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng {chat} 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highland High School (Blackwood, New Jersey)

This topic isn't significant enough to have an article. King of Hearts 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand It absolutely is significant. There's a huge project to create High School entries across the country. In my region we have pages for Sitka High School, Mt. Edgecumbe High School, and Juneau-Douglas High School. It's not a very well written article, but it shouldn't be deleted it should be improved! Jarfingle 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, been throught this a hundred times. Keep, high schools are inherently notable. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand- Another high school article. What are the chances this gets deleted? Close to zero. Why do they get nominated? Good question...oh and the unreferenced tag is pretty funny -- JJay 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is almost empty and looks like a yellow pages entry. Cleaning this up would more or less mean discarding the entire content so it is better to start from scratch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that this is an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another nn school. Catchpole 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. By saying that this entry should be deleted you're saying that high school entries should not be included in wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfingle (talk • contribs) 2005 December 16

No. Wikipedia should host articles on notable subjects with verified importance and relevancy. That means if the school has a relevant history or notable ex-alumni then it stays. The AFDs should be directed to those schools which are only locally relevant,i.e., don't hold a relevant history or never produced verifiably notable alumni --Mecanismo | Talk 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catchpole is voting to delete all schools as a "counterweight" to those who want to keep schools. [15] Silensor 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history ma
• Keep, no reason readers shouldn't be able to look up information on important things like high schools, whereever they are in the world. Kappa 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. Yet, the key word is "important". If a subject is verifiably important, notable and relevant outside a local scale then it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. If the subject doesn't fill those demands, it should be left out --Mecanismo | Talk 12:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should people donate to an encyclopedia promising them the sum of human knowledge but denying them access to information they regard as important? Kappa 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, no one has ever promissed the "sum of human knowledge". Second, because they are investing their money in the creation of an encyclopedia and not a directory listing. An encyclopedia is dedicated to verifiably notable and referenciable knowledge. If someone wants the "sum of human knowledge" that person is better off investing in google, for example --Mecanismo | Talk 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]