Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw Such Things in My Sleep and Trains to Brazil

Albums by Guillemots (band) (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Singles from a band whose article was deleted for being nn.... Delete. These can be recreated (with the band article) when the group gets more than regional notoriety. B.Wind 03:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the band's page is gone, why are the single pages still here? --Thephotoman 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the band was deleted, the albums should also go. Punkmorten 10:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Thephotoman and Punkmorten. IanManka 15:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the band's page looks spiffy, and according to AfD, the band is notable in UK. I vote to keep, and strike out my previous vote. I also made an attempt to fix the link for the AfD (it is now on its second vote). IanManka 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cant seem to fix the link for the second AfD. Anyone know how to do that? IanManka 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apparently can't read. The links are fine as displayed. IanManka 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Guillemots (band) has now been listed on deletion review; you may want to weigh in there and/or hold off on commenting here. —Cryptic (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the Guillemots page will pass deletion review (there's even content there right now), so hence my keep vote.--Aleron235 23:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We can't be keeping every album by any group.Madman 06:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the band is notable, these albums are too.  Grue  14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought deleting the band writeup was unfair but these can surely go / be merged into Guillemots. Two EPs is not substantial content worth splitting. (guest)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Art PC

Inescapably (admitted) POV article about the "Wikipedia interpretation" of the best possible computer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone's Christmas wish-list. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No content of use to anyone but the article's originators. Only one Wiki page links to it and it links to no others.--R6MaY89 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• stay the entry is not finished in 5 minutes, makes it better Mr.Do! 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is silly, we have enough stuff to own State of the Art categorie, for CPUs, medical technology, engines and many other things, PC is only the first entry here. Every range of products has on evolutionary point somewhere. Mr.Do! 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per OwenX. —Brim 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia view [...]" — Wikipedia has no views. This article is both non-neutral and original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this was former, all to grumble so much, however, why improve nothing? there is certainly still a better memory somewhere! Mr.Do! 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have mis-read it, but think that Mr.Do! is pointing out that in response xe changed that to "The State of the Art PC is a Wikipedia NPOV [...]". Changing the sentence into something that now doesn't actually make any sense at all doesn't alter the fundamental problems with this article. I've no idea what the final sentence of the above means. Please clarify. Uncle G 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • State of the Art is a slogan of many companies. But in the reality purely subjectively. Alone the Wikipediauser can evaluate which that is! Everyone knows something, and the sum of all parts is a new realization what the State of the Art is, the truth is not outside by Dell, Apple, IBM or somewhere otherwise as enzyklopical fact! Mr.Do! 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't create new realizations here; nor do we do truths that do not exist outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page is not only pointless, but the person who wrote it obviously could not have come to a consensus with the rest of the Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. To say that something is state of the art as of 2005 might be okay in an article about a specific technology, but to make an article about a hypothetical computer is just pointless. --Thephotoman 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actually State of the specific technology, example the Parts in the HydrogenCar is never not hypothetical pointless in the state of the art, then this is always a today's estimate out the quality sales. Mr.Do! 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but make a page for Wikipedia:Recommended hardware requirements if we don't already have one. Firebug 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & others. Billbrock 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic, per Uncle G, Thephotoman, and others. –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sommers. IanManka 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gimme! r3m0t ^talk 16:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Firebug Jcuk 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think someone can figure this out if we just link to State of the art, we don't need a seperate page for PC's. VegaDark 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, change page to a redirect to State of the art.--Aleron235 23:16, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Volkov

• The article remains untranslated after too weeks of it's entry on Pages needing translation; multiple editors are in consensus that the content is of little or no value. Should be deleted. - Introvert ^talk 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  A few excerpts from the discussion WP:PNT#Nikolay Volkov:

  Russian, and deletable. Has nothing to do with any Nikolay nor Volkov. Content is "after the law about the Jewish autonome district was cancelled in 1993 [that's a real district in Russia], which originally passed in 1981, the district was in a strange situation. No new law had been passed, and of the five autonome districts that existed in the Russian USR, only the Jewish one remained (four had been granted the status of republics within the Russian Federation). All five previous autonomies were a part of bigger federation subjects". Jewish Autonomous Oblast has the relevant and verifiable information. Solver 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  [...] It appears that Nikolay Volkov is in fact, the governor of the said Jewish autonomy (since 1991!). It probably won't be too hard to find the governor's bio, but this piece now surely looks like an anti-governor rant... and perhaps should still be deleted. There's no article about him in the Russian wikipedia too, if that's going to help to make a decision. ? - Introvert ^talk 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with Introvert on not being telling if it's upside down or sideways, but from the transliteration Rich provided I'm pretty sure it's just the name of the said autonomous oblast: Yidisher="Jewish", "avitanama"="autonomous", "gegnt"="oblast". A rough google search confirms this, too. All in all, nothing of value there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This is two weeks old... Since there's still an active discussion here, I figure I'll ask first: Any objections to moving this to WP:AFD? It looks like we have a consensus that this is not worth translating... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)}

• Comment. I'm removing Nikolay Volkov from WP:PNT, per usual practice. If you want to see the original discussion on, you can read it in this revision. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and disambiguate, as Nikolai Volkov is a name for both a notable professional wrestler from the 1970s through the 1990s and a notable Russian actor. B.Wind 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 06:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, disambiguate, per B.Wind . IanManka 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per B.Wind--Aleron235 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but rewrite about the governor of JAO.  Grue  14:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poliqarp

From WP:PNT, been there since December 4th, with little attention. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Russian --Melaen 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish. About a piece of software. Solver 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is decribed in English here. Feels as quite important but the article is so small and the topic so esoteric that it may wait years before someone takes care of it. A more dedicaded person will create better article later. It is not yet present on Polish Wiki. Pavel Vozenilek 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly tell author about the Polish Wikipedia, where this entry would be more appropriate. --Thephotoman 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep translate and enlarge. Dont see why this would be more appropriate on Polish Wiki, btw Jcuk 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jcuk. --Aleron235 23:20, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Wealth Creation

Advertising MNewnham 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per nom. josh (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Thephotoman 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Bkwillwm 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pile on, spam xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I have removed the links from the page, they can obviously be replaced in the unlikely event that this passes AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• WEAK Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a non advertising manner Jcuk 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not hard to rewrite to be factual.--Aleron235 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as there is no notable information other than the (now removed) references. —Onlyemarie 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad --Jaranda wat's sup 06:21, 23 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatmough's planet types

John Whatmough's classification system is not entirely scientific, it is an extension for artistic purposes of the Sudarsky classification system. In addition some of the material on the page is dubious - there are no known Vulcanoids, Mercury Venus and Earth are not jovian type planets. The place descriptions are also vague and possibly untrue for a given planetary system, e.g. if the closest planet is in the water zone. Chaos syndrome 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Whatmough seems possibly borderline notable; an article on him or his work might be welcome, if he does meet the standards for notability. Or maybe a mention on another relevant page. Anyway, this is too specialized. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. It appears that Whatmough died in September. I haven't found any information about his qualifications or work besides his website. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability isn't the issue. The article cites no independent sources, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever acknowledged this system of classification. (Sudarsky, in contrast, not only had at least two co-authors on his paper, but had the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.) I was going to write "anyone apart from Whatmough", but upon reading this page (which makes no mention of classifying Venus, Mars, and Earth in this way and does not even contain the phrase "sulfur jovian") it appears that not even Whatmough acknowledged the system outlined in this article. As far as I can tell, Whatmough used the Sudarsky system. This is simply not a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, I should have been more specific. By notability, I meant that it hasn't been accepted. Even if it was obscure, yet accepted, I would have voted to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and comments. --Thephotoman 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This term is not only neologism invented by the creator of the article, but the article is also wrong (as if the original classification system wasn't already very speculative). Although I'm a great fan of Mr. Whatmough's website, there is no option but to delete this article.--Jyril 21:52, 23 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie & Shades

nn webcomic. It was created by a new user "Greenie". A search on google returns almost nothing except the author's own "visit my site please" postings[1]. Unless I'm missing something, this is a delete. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy - nn. Daykart 00:49, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi

Non-notable. Only 102 Google hits. The page is also a collection of linkspam. --Khoikhoi 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly a vanity page. --Thephotoman 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is a vanity page, and an article on this chap's organisation (also by him) has already been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bay_Area_Shiite-Muslims_Association. --Squiddy 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pepsidrinka 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity page by a linkspammer. Well, he's stopped linkspamming, so far as I know, but still ... Zora 10:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it This is not a vanity page. There are no links to it. It is not advertised. It is harmless. It is not a link spam as it is about a person. There are people inquiring about this person because of his positions. This page tells a little bit about this person. In fact, this is the purpose of wikipedia: provide info about things! Besides, why are you so eager to delete something harmless?? (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Please read carefully: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Some of the people involved here with Wikipedia are most certainly "elitists," rude, bitter, hostile, and inauthentic, especially those who choose to label others or break the very policies of Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia policy: "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))

Ok, but now you know that you can't write articles about yourself unless you're notable enough. --Khoikhoi 18:01, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess blogs

Unencyclopedic; we can not have pages describing all the possible topics that can be found on blogs. Article is orphan. All relevant links in the article have been added to the main chess article. Delete Schutz 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? Is there an article number limit I haven't heard about? CalJW 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This actually is an interesting phenomenon, and could become a valuable article if cleaned up. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per The Hooded Man. -- JJay 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a list of nn blogs is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess. Doomed to be a stub forever or a dictionary definition. It is simply about blogs that are about chess. What more is there to say? Logophile 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zoe. Blogs aren't usually notable. karmafist 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT a Web directory or collection of external links. FCYTravis 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - will always be just a dicdef + a collection of links, neither of which Wikipedia "is". (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess. --Thephotoman 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--Bkwillwm 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I approve the merge comments, but since I copied the relevant links to the main Chess article (see nom), I think the merge has effectively already been done. Schutz 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wouldn't say delete if there was something special about chess blogs; some sort of unique software intended specifically for them or an organization devoted to them or really anything to indicate that a chess blog is anything more than a blog about chess. Snurks ^{T C} 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I though we had nixed the last of these with Poker blog. Blog cruft however you look at it. - Randwicked 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list of nn blogs, now doubly unnecessary due to the work done above by Schutz. Eusebeus 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, or else delete, as per the many wonderful arguments above. Chess blogity does not stand as a notable subject on its own. Lord Bob 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Chess's "external links" section, if it has one, classifying the said blogs into its own sub-heading "Blogs," with a brief description of each; if no section exists, create one, and label "external links." IanManka 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the "external links" section already has multiple sub-headings, a merge with Chess would substantiate the need for a "Chess blogs" sub-heading within "external links". IanManka 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chess blogs contains 4 external links; only 1 is a blog, 3 are indicated as lists of blog. In the "external links" section, I have cited the one blog, and one of the lists which contains most (if not all) links from the others. I don't think there is a need for a new sub-section; the current sections are split according to topics related to chess (programs, organisation, etc), not by technology used by the website which provides the information. Tell me if you think that this is enough to consider that the merge has been done. Schutz 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks good; I call it a day. I am changing my vote to delete. IanManka 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep article seems to be about a genuine phenomenon. NN is irrelevant as it is not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how many times you say it does not make in any truer than the first time you said it. NN is very much Wikipedia policy. Do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Whilst I have no desire to get into a slanging match (which will do neither of us or more importantly Wikipedia any good) I do feel strongly that the statement "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." found on, for example Wikipedia:Biography page says it all. Jcuk 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO is a guideline on what is covered under WP:NOT, speficially "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a link repository", and WP:NOT is a policy. --Last Malthusian 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I dont see your point. WP:BIO specifically says that what is on that page is not policy. It cant possiby not be policy on one page and policy on another? If that were so, some serious clearing up would need to be done to remove the ambiguity.Jcuk 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:CSD#Articles, which is official policy, under "Unremarkable people". Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • It is not policy that people who don't meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO don't meet notability criteria. It is policy that notability criteria exist. If you say 'I believe that this person is notable even though he doesn't meet WP:BIO', that makes sense if you justify it. If you say 'This person isn't in any way notable but I don't care', then you're ignoring policy. --Last Malthusian 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have to say that WP:CSD#Articles being official policy, and WP:BIO NOT being official policy seems very odd. If according to CSD notability in Bios IS official policy it's ludicrous to then say it's not in BIO. However this is getting way off the mark, as the vote here is about Chess Blogs. Jcuk 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. We have the CSDs to avoid cluttering up AfD with articles that have no chance of survival, including blatant vanity articles. We have the WP:BIO and similar guidelines so that Wikipedians can give exact, precise, quick reasons for why the subject is notable or not by referring to the appropriate guidelines, without having to explain their reasoning over and over again in separate discussions. Two separate reasons, both perfectly valid. The reason one is policy and the other not is because an article that meets a CSD has no merit whatsoever, while an article that doesn't meet WP:BIO etc. may have some other virtue that we overlooked when creating the guidelines. --Last Malthusian 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of external links, and we don't need a billion articles on subject + the word 'blog'. There is precedent for this - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_blog, which resulted in a delete. --Last Malthusian 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth noting the opinion of one of the voters on [[Poker blog]s: "Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)" It just struck me as funny, that's all -- and it might be worthy in this debate. IanManka 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--dev1n 02:38, 19December 2005 (UTC)

  vote actually by 69.231.19.30 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • comment this is bat sh*t fu**ing crazy, this much trouble over a blog about chess?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:31, 24 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She Died In June

Claims release of a single, a google search pulls 2 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should check http://www.Shediedinjune.com and http://www.myspace.com/shediedinjune for obvious release of said single.

• Delete - as per the WP:NMG. The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion, sometimes seem a bit rigid, but in this case there's just not enough notability. --ParkerHiggins 01:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really hate band vanity pages. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn band. Two sentences do not an article make. Wikipedia will welcome them once they get more exposure. B.Wind 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn band. --Thephotoman 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep They exist. Nuff said.

"The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion."??? A guideline is by definition not a rule, therefor there are no rules per say for inclusion. Even if you accept WP:NMG, it itself states that just because a band or whatever does not pass its test, that is not automatically cause for deletion.Jcuk 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-per both B.Wind and Thephotoman.... if all local small time bands were to be considered encyclopedic there would be no room on the servers for anything else-Reid A. 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Agnte

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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} 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moulton

Author and bike builder of rather questionable notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Built pro racing bikes- has published a novel. -- JJay 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as per nom. Only one booke whose Amazon rank 1,378,054 is low. Keep Vastly improved rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems a vanity page. --Thephotoman 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per re-write. --Thephotoman 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only low Amazon rank, I got 1,864,385 Keep not the most notable person ever, but probably worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Article is much better after rewrite and no longer looks like vanity.--Bkwillwm 07:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite to avoid NPOV problems that seem to exist with the page at the moment. Notability irrelevant, not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep (Changed due to Crypticfirefly's rewrite) (although I'd suggest moving the page to the name of his company, if any, as that's the notable thing, not him personally) Notability doesn't have to be policy - it's a shorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopedia - that's not a subject for policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the name of his "company" was his own name-- he apparently operated the buisness as a sole-proprietorship-- there is no "company" name. "Fuso," etc. were just trademarks that he used. I did put a reference to him on the "Fuso" disambig page, which may help. I should add also, that he did most if not all the work personally on the custom frames that he was most famous for. Crypticfirefly 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• commentshorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopeadia. Pretty much leaves me open to suggest every article I dont like gets nixed simply because I dont like it. There has to be a better criterion, personally I think verifiability is it. Jcuk 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dave Moulton has definite credibility with certain bicycle enthusiasts. A 'Google' search confirms this. (Pick out entries related to bicycles.) Richard D 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found an interesting article about the guy in the May 8, 1989 issue of San Diego Business Journal, may add more info myself. Crypticfirefly 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've rewritten the article. Though I had never heard of the guy before, I can make the following arguments for "notability": (1) in the mid-70's was well-known in professional bike racing. Many photos of British pros of the time can be found with their bikes prominently marked with Moulton's name. If nothing else, people might want to look him up for that association. (2) He was well known enough that people were ordering his bikes from other countries-- namely, the U.S. (3) News articles refer to him as a well-nown "guru" of frame-making or as a master frame-maker. Recent articles about other bike makers mention Moulton's association with their business. (For example, Masi apparently is still commenting on the fact that he worked for them.) Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nice job. Moulton is an interesting guy. Thanks. -- JJay 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable and reasonably notable within a limited locus; also to disambiguate from Alex Moulton and Moulton Bicycle. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:09, 23 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley the Republican

"...the first popular conservative woman podcaster." Weasel words aside, so what? Podcasts are a dime a dozen. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about we see some independent verification of any of these claims. I say, give it a little bit, and if they can't come up with any of that, then my vote is for delete.DeathThoreau 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending some verification. -- JJay 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 493,000 google hits for "Shelley the Republican" and the early ones are all about this, and in a wide range of different places. CalJW 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, that's funny, I get only 105 unique Google hits. Try putting quote marks around the phrase. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, JJay's vote is odd -- what, we're supposed to keep all nonverified stuff? That's not the way Wikipedia works. And I have to question CalJW's counting skills, as I get 26,500 Google hits for "Shelley the Republican", only 94 unique. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I meant that the nom has not shown that this is not notable or unverified. I don't have time to google every nom and also don't feel that I can fully trust the nom's judgement. Since we have tons of podcasts/podcasters on the site, how am I supposed to decide which ones stay or go. Therefore, I have to default to keep pending some verification that Ms. Shelley Republican is not notable. I was hoping that editors with some expertise in this area would help guide that choice. -- JJay 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I share your same concerns, only because some of the other nomations made by Mr. Gustafson earlier today looked a bit hurried. I am assuming good faith, but I hope that he reconsiders and voluntarily withdraws some of his other noms, such as the AFD for Khalil Beschir. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, I agree. I can't run the risk of throwing away potentially valuable information. In this specific case, how can one judge the notability or popularity of a podcaster? Are there ratings or awards? Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Maybe google hits are not the answer. -- JJay 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, are you saying that lacking verification, your vote above is one for a Delete? You're right, Google is rarely a good source when it comes to Websites, [http:/www.alexa.com Alexa] is far superior, but can't be used in this case since the Alexa rank will be for [http:www.blogspot.com Blogspot], Shelly's bloghost. Maybe we should ask Shelly why she's any different than the hundreds, if not thousands of political pundit bloggers out there. karmafist 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought this woman was supposed to be a popular conservative woman podcaster. Is podcasting the same as blogging? Does Alexa rank podcasts? I do find Ms. Shelley nominated for Texan of the year along with a bunch of other famous people [2], or mentioned in a Guardian book review [3], but am still quite unable to judge her notability. Also, my vote right now is Keep. It might change to delete, at which point it will be two letters longer with a different pronunication starting with the letter "D". -- JJay 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My Google results are similar to that of Zoe's, but with 100 more for some strange reason ("Results 1 - 10 of about 26,600 for "Shelley the Republican". (0.06 seconds)"). [4] The difference of 100 hits might be because I have filtering disabled and am allowing for any language, any format, anytime and anywhere in the advanced Google configuration. This seems notable enough though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your search still only shows 94 unique hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not know how to explain our strange discrepancy, but when I perform a search for this name using the link I provided above, it returns 118 unique hits on page 12. In any case, I believe that this person is notable enough for inclusion based on these results. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator and Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - EVERY SINGLE LINK past 210 is a link to "Podcastpickle.com." Linkfarmed and linkspammed to boost results, obviously. Non-notable. "First popular woman podcaster" is also unsourced and unverified. FCYTravis 06:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alexa check is impossible since it's a blogspot blog, blogs/podcasts are generally not notable and this one hasn't proved otherwise, or really anything about how it doesn't violate WP:NOT/Propaganda Machine. karmafist 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FCYTravis and karmafist. - Randwicked 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreeing with above. The linkspamming is out of control. Eusebeus 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good example of why Google is a guideline when determining encyclopedic notability, not a strict rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You want to be anonymous and then spam everywhere in sight? Bah. Non-notable. Ifnord 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability Irrelevant, not official Wiki policy. Jcuk 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue. Notability is one of the specific criteria by which biographies can be speedy deleted. That is official Wikipedia policy. And please do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Notability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and therefore a valid reason for deletion. Durova 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be spamming; absolutly no sourced claims of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Podcasters are a dime-a-dozen. Hells bells, even I've started one. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability is relevant. Why? Apart from it being the basis of WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. etc, notability is relevant because the community damn well says it is. Wikpiedia is not a bureaucracy (that's not in WP:NOT, but it should be) and community consensus ranks over the lack of 'policy'. --Last Malthusian 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to counter left-wing bias.  Grue  14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per FCYTravis Agnte 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FCYTravis - FrancisTyers 16:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although you know the liberal jewish media is out of control *wink* wink* I was tempted to vote keep, but then I didn't--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:34, 24 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 to University of Minnesota. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superblock (University of Minnesota)

School dorm block. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Interesting stuff. -- JJay 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: does that university have an inode table (University of Minnesota) as well? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to University of Minnesota. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Zoe. The part about "multidude of social activity" sounds interesting from a dudeinal standpoint. Hamster Sandwich 05:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to University of Minnesota. --Thephotoman 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Zoe. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and or Merge as per Zoe Jcuk 20:46, 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. I probably would have no consensus-ed it, but the lack of references at the time I closed this makes B.Wind's comment count as a delete, bringing it over the threshold. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Best Syndrome

31 hits. Neologism. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - DavidWBrooks 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This term has been bandied about in music circles the last few years. Wait for references; if there is no independent reference (Internet or print) by the end of AfD, then delete. B.Wind 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Does need some references. --Thephotoman 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Doesn't seem to be in popular usage, and the page is sparse. Would be better as a paragraph in the Pete Best article (with a redirect) or just plain deleted, imho. --kingboyk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's easy to find references that disagree with the article[5], but hard to find ones that support it.
• Keep or possibly Merge with Pete Best article. Jcuk 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - feel free to recreate if independent references can be found. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep. I've heard this term quite a lot (ISTR first hearing it referring to Mick Abrahams on a documentary about Jethro Tull, of all people, in about 1990). Grutness...wha? 05:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:V unless someone comes up with a source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 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 Prolly shouldn'ta AfD'd in the first place... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech resistance under Nazi occupation

Essay-ish entry with material covered in other articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Notable, encyclopedic topic, well-written, not a copyvio (unlike what seems like most of what gets submitted here); if the opening seems a little thesis-like, it's not original research, but well referenced to historians (later editors can balance it out a little). I also wikified it/cleaned it up a little. CanadianCaesar 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also moved it to Czech resistance to Nazi occupation (What exactly were they resisting "under Nazi occupation"?) CanadianCaesar 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You might have said which other articles. I am not going to look for you. CalJW 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic with verifiable information. Well done Canadian Caesar for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but it wasn't really a rewrite, just some small fixes. CanadianCaesar 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable historical topic. Movementarian 04:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. --Apostrophe 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, historical, and can be expanded. Need to make the first sentence consistent with whatever the title is going to be. —Brim 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Canadian Ceasar. Nice work! Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The Strongest Possible Keep. Wikipedia articles are, by nature, essays. What is not allowed is Original Research essays. Logophile 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why is this even on AfD, as per above? --Thephotoman 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good historical article. Baffling nomination. --Squiddy 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting historical topic. Could be expanded in some way (for example mentions about Munich agreement - the psycho-effect of this betrayal of allies for Czechs) Szalas
• STRONG KEEP In fact I dont think I've ever felt a stronger KEEP vote coming over me!! The article is encyclopeadic, seems well researched and has a definate place in Wikipedia. (Delete nominator? ;-> ) Jcuk 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It covers only early years of war but that could be improved. Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations with names based on word/phrase puns

Useless list, not really accurate, likely POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A number of popular names for companies are like this, I can't imagine that this list could ever be wholly comprehensive. Also, most of these are more portmanteuas than puns.DeathThoreau 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. -- JJay 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reason is that this list is ill-defined and probably unmaintainable. Most of the companies in that list are actually just modified acronyms. So they're not really based on "puns". mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good, interesting list. CalJW 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A silly concept. How can it be useful, let alone accurate? It's mainly a list of names based on portmanteaux and acronyms, not puns. At bare minimum, it needs to have its name changed. What's next, a list of companies whose CEO's open their cereal boxes from the bottom? Chris the speller 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme delete, nonsense list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Content can go on List of company name etymologies, or List of portmanteaus. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overblown and unencyclopedic list. --Apostrophe 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's just advertising. -- Kjkolb 05:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not advertising or nonsense, but definitely silly and useless. Each company name can be explained in the article about that company. Logophile 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Impossible to maintain and pointless. FCYTravis 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FCYTravis. FreplySpang (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless list. No reason to delete. Would possibly support a merge to list of portmanteaus.....possibly. Jcuk 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all lists, especially POV nonsense like this.Gateman1997 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that include valuable non-POV lists that you submit, such as List of White Americans? Just want to know where you really stand. -- JJay 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe all lists of information that is better contained in cats should be deleted, but as List of African Americans and List of Native Americans are being kept for the sake of racial equality I believe it's only fair to have a List of White Americans. To do otherwise is racist IMHO.Gateman1997 19:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonsense listcruft --Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 23 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 KEEP --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (Emulator)

NN emulator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. -- JJay 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom succinct. Maybe important [6]. Default keep. -- JJay 02:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 163,000 google hits for "dolphin emulator nintendo". CalJW 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yikes, this is really notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:37, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Beschir

NN racecar driver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Over 11,000 hits on Google, notable. Tufflaw 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A1 driver with team Lebanon. [7]. Did the nom check this? -- JJay 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Please read WP:BIO before nominating any further biographical articles. CalJW 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I regard that as a personal attack. CalJW 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or speedy keep if the nominator will withdraw; appears to meet and exceed the criteria set forth by WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarih ve Demokrasi

NN web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has the nom attempted to verify this? It looks potentially important in the framework of Turkish democracy. -- JJay 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing vote following relevant comments from Turkish editor hudd. -- JJay 07:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Verify This needs some validation. DeathThoreau 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please at least try to justify your nominations. CalJW 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Does this website meet any of the following criteria set by WP:WEB?
  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

  The site is in a foreign language which I do not understand, I would like to hear from the creator of this article, User:Csunsay, before making any kind of final decision. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no claim to notability like listed above, only 123 unique Google results.
• Delete, well: I'm Turkish, and this is the first time I heard of this site. Its not a forum, obviously some people (probably owners of the site) keep posting articles that will make Turkish right-wing angry (no npov intended, this is what it is). Not to mention description also says "we are totally npov", obviously takes side. Not a famous site (its not hosted on its own server, first of all), not a fair discussion over the Turkish democracy (not a discussion as well, more like some sides gathered together to promote their ideas), doesn't have 5000 users, not a subject to media attention, technically cannot be rated on Alexa. I'd sum up that it does not qualify as a Wikipedia entry, furthermore the article is exaggrating and misleading. It is a nice site, but has no place here, yet.hudd 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (edit: never got that left/right thing.. sorry)[reply]
• Delete as per Hudd. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN web forum Agnte 20:16, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Blaser

NN profesor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep President-elect infectious diseases society, published author on treatment of AIDS patieints, 92000 google hits on 'martin blaser infectious diseases' MNewnham 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very important Prof. -- JJay 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. is notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Published over 450 scientific papers, lead researcher on Helicobacter Pylori, frequent TV commentator on the infectious disease du jour
• Keep Low quality nomination. CalJW 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets the criteria in WP:PROF. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developers Digest

NN website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a Mediawiki site without which we wouldn't be here. CalJW 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We wouldn't be here without MediWiki, yes. We do just fine without this pissant nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absolutely a notable website. What's with the rampage against "NN websites"? Please verify before listing an article for AfD. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Um, what the hell? Just because a site runs MediaWiki doesn't make it notable. It's a wiki with SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. Yes, SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant. FCYTravis 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this needs to be written in twenty foot letters: SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. What the fuck, actually. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant - what the hell, the category is called MediaWiki websites. The category description is Website that runs MediaWiki software - I believe my website falls into that category, no? --RossOliver

• Keep per arguments above. Also please refrain from foul language. Many younger editors participate in these discussions. Frustrations can be expressed in other ways-- JJay 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a website whose only claim to notability is that it runs a popular and well-known piece of wiki software. The wiki for a freakin' MU* that I play on has more than 68 articles, for God's sake! And yes, it runs MediaWiki. And no, I will not write an article on it because I'm sane. If 'runs popular software' is a criteria for notability now, should we vote to keep all websites that use HTML? Lord Bob 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Delete as advertising. Nice looking site but at this point in time entirely non-notable. Actually, I'd say speedy delete as vanity and advertising, if that's possible. The site's About page has been viewed a grand total of 98 times, and is one sentence long. The forum says 'Most users ever online was 6'. I rest my case! --kingboyk 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as non-notable. I wouldn't call it a rampage but if every website knew we blindly accepted any free advertising they threw at us - we'd be in very sad shape.Ifnord 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per kingboyk's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.TheRingess 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is irrelevant as it's not official Wiki policy, just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to edit.Jcuk 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that's what they are doing here - why does something not being policy make it "irrelevant"? That trees grow toward the sun is not policy, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Are not policies the rules by which we decide whether or not something should be kept? Jcuk 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Christ - I didn't realise a website had to be popular in order for it to be listed on the 'MediaWiki websites' page. If it's that big of a deal, delete the article; I obviously misunderstood the use of that category. No need to slander my website though. --RossOliver
  • I can see how there'd be a misunderstanding, so I'll try and explain as best I can. Categories are not intended to list all things that fit into that category, merely to list all things that fit into that category and qualify to appear in Wikipedia as per the policies and significant precedent that have been laid out. Lord Bob 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair enough, I misunderstood and I apologise. In fact, I even went as far as to politely apologise to this guy when he first listed my page for deletion and for him to come back and call my website 'pissant nonsense' isn't really on. --RossOliver
      • I agree, as that violates our civility policy, and assume good faith. Mr. Oliver, we sincerely hope that your site does develop great interest in the future, and that someday it will merit an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to second that. This has nothing to do with the quality of the site (note to person below) nor about being mean or rude, but as to whether it currently belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say no it doesn't, but I hope that some day it will! --kingboyk 10:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say I'm surprised you've been poorly treated here. The insults that are being tossed around are beyond the pale. You deserve an apology. That said, I voted keep and think your site is good and merits a page at wikipedia. -- JJay 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete running mediawiki does not make a site worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Agnte 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The JPS 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB.Gateman1997 18:21, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danville, Illinois, Ward 7 Alderman Election, 2005

Local election results. NN, delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Looks to be close election with recount. Could probably be expanded. -- JJay 01:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of local interest only. Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Dlyons493. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Less than 1000 people voted and we probably don't have an article on the winner. If we did, the claims would be questionable under articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteas per Capitalistroadster. Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, but I'm really curious as to that one write-in. Not too curious, though. Snurks ^{T C} 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Cap. PJM 17:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable. NN irrelevant, not official Wiki policy, just a guideline.Jcuk 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to a local election page for Danville as such an election is and should be notable for Danville. Davewild 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it notable simply for being decided by one vote? Do we have an article like "Elections decided by one vote" that this could be merged into? TMS63112 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We do have Close elections, maybe this could be renamed Close local elections. -- JJay 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Deelte local intrest only --Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urindish

Neologism. There's nothing on google[8] about this. The author has removed the unreferenced template and left it with no sourcing. Seems highly unlikely that urndish is the 3rd most spoken language when its mentioned nowhere. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree, per nom. Tufflaw 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. I mean, if there's an English Wikipedia, a Hindi wikipedia and an Urdu Wikipedia, then one woudl think that the "third most understood language" would have its own. DeathThoreau 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Speedy if possible. Nonsense.Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst the controversy related to the religious connotations of Hindi and Urdu is a very real one (that has indeed caused a long-running edit war to exist on those two articles, and that gives the U.S. English/Commonwealth English controversy a good run for its money), there is no evidence whatsoever that people have adopted this idea in order to distance themselves from it. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that this idea even exists outside of Wikipedia. This appears to be the author's original invention. Delete. Uncle G 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non verifiable -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
• Comment: Just because you are not familiar with the term "Urindish" does not mean it does not exist. The usage of the term Urindish to refer to Hindi-Urdu language is slowly taking off and it is only a matter of time before it gains popularity. Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjadfarooq (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Unreferenced, unsubstantiated term. Just because someone coins a term doesn't mean it is used in reality. --Ragib 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom Agnte 20:17, 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 Ral315 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Lateral Road

It's just a road. Nominating this for precedence more so than its non-notability, but either works. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge urban legend stuff about ghosts/whatnot into Woodson, Arkansas and redirect. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and cleanup for tone if verified. I have no real preference about where this should be covered but local Urban legends of this kind deserve coverrage, although I wonder how a biker could die on such a straight road... - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. -- JJay 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Good article on good road + what Jcuk said. -- JJay 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn road --Jaranda wat's sup 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it is heavily marked for tons of cleanup I'd like to see it have a chance to be improved and refrenced, if not it can always be relisted. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. I wanted to find something notable, and I tried. I like any article with the word, "wierdness" in it. But, in this case, I don't see anything to save nor hope it'll improve even with every cleanup tag we have. Ifnord 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The M1 is just a road but it has an entry. Woodson Lateral Road is verifiable, non notability is irrelevant as its not official Wiki rules, just guidelines by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. Jcuk 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (feel free to Merge, as per Mgm). Notable means verifiable and well-known, and important, and liely to be looked up - what's irrlevant about that? "Some but by no means all Wikipedians" vandalize articles, but that doesn't make vandalizing either relevant or irrelvant to the usefulness of information in Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the deletion of this would not set a precedent, unless you're looking to form a precedent on urban legends. --SPUI (talk) 20:18, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MGcomics

Delete. Non-notable vanity web-site, according to Google only 13 other sites link to it. Tufflaw 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB by a long shot. No offense, but it's very hard to assert notability with a sprite comic using other people's creative property.DeathThoreau 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It exists, is verifiable, and notability is just a guidline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My nose exists, too. And I am one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • commentMy nose exists too, as it happens, but you're not likely to find the fact on Yahoo or whatever, therefor writing an article about my nose would be non verifiable. You'll have guess I'm not one of the Wikipedians who choose to operate via notability... Jcuk 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, vanity, doesnt meet WP:WEB Agnte 20:18, 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 Speedied by User:Zoe

Founder of Harbison Canyon

inappropriate entry--Schmiteye 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify While it's great when people want to learn about their family history, wikipedia isn't the place to do it. There are a lot of websites, although I'm not really familiar with any of them, however this isn't one of them. DeathThoreau 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as an attempt at communication. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffaria

From WP:PNT. Only been there a few hours, but consensus there is to delete as a hoax. Here's the discussion from WP:PNT... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German. "Kaffaria is a modification of the write art of the Kaffkas. In this kind of the letter one needs four pins, between each finger one. Then one must learn with each pin another letter to write, if one created that can one whole stories much shorter time write. Already Homerie Hugold(1312 1363) had at that time a similar schreibart, but only with three pins. The Kaffaria completed the write art then." (Babel Fish Translation) I can't make much of this other than it does not appear to be nonsense, vanity, nor an advertisement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange... no relevant Google hits for "Kaffaria" nor "Kaffar", nor "Hugolt". Doubtfully, but could it refer to something really rare but still valid, in the history? - Introvert ^talk 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more exact translation: Kaffaria is a modification of Kaffka's [sic] art in writing. In this kind of writing, four pens are needed, one between each finger [sic]. Then one must learn to write another letter with each pen. When one has done this, one is able to write entire stories in much shorter [less] time. Even Homerie Hugold(1312-1363) already used to have such a way of writing, though only with three pens. [The] Kaffaria subsequently perfected the writing art.

Surely this is a spoof? Kaffaria is a geographical designation in South-Africa, but there is no connexion with the author Kafka (single f). Homerie, as far as I am aware, does not occur, but has overtones of Homer. Writing with a number of pens at the same time, surely, is a game only practised by children? The associations with Kafka and Homer must be relegated to the field of creative nonsense, as must the entire entry. Bessel Dekker 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It surely does look like someone's gotten into merry spirits already, so I was just being one step extra careful :) - Introvert ^talk 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, too. Well, they've had their fun, which is a nice thought for the season :-) Bessel Dekker 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So AfD as hoax? Or shall we let it sit here for two weeks first, just in case? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is the best the author can do, it must be a hoax. Letting it sit might be an option, but only because this is the merry (and merciful) season. Should you wish to give the author a chance, by all means. But to be honest, I can see no merit in this article. Just re-read my translation above (if you can bring yourself to do it), and try to picture what it purports to describe. Bessel Dekker 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say speedy as {{nonsense}}. Come on, writing with four pens in one hand as a way to write stories faster? Kusma (討論) 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We go over this on WP:AFD all the time. If it is parseable English (or in this case, parseable German), it's not {{nonsense}}. If you can understand it, but yet it is complete bollocks, then it is definitely deletable, but requires debate on AfD. If fact, I think I'll AfD this article right away, since there seems to be consenus here on WP:PNT that it is worthless. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm the nominator) - delete per WP:PNT discussion. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I suspect it may have been inspired by Thea Alba, a German music hall performer billed as "The Woman with Ten Brains"; her act was to write on a blackboard simultaneously using ten pieces of chalk taped to her fingers. She's mentioned in Ricky Jay's Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women. Tearlach 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Translated it - I see someone's already done it above but I was bored. Very silly. --Last Malthusian 09:47, 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 Delete, no consensus as to where the redirect should point. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Laser

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. (The only Super Star Destroyer not in Imperial possession? Try Lusankya (eventually).) 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what looks here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-canon fan-fiction that doesn't even make sense. This ship couldn't've fought in the Clone Wars: there were no Star Destroyers at the time. Marblespire 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This ship is already well covered in Super Star Destroyer#Named_Examples. The experts that maintain that page will remove that listing if this ship is too far from the canon. ×Meegs 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose redirecting to the middle of the huge Super Star Destroyer article as suggested below. If there's to be a redirect, I'd support Laser only. ×Meegs 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Laser (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to laser Jcuk 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to laser VegaDark 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Marblespire. -LtNOWIS 21:02, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trandoshan Rifle

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. It doesn't fit with Boba Fett's history, and the reference to Ben Skywalker doesn't make sense. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is such a weapon as a Trandoshan Rifle in the SW universe. This isn't it. Even if the article was correct, it would not be 'significant' enough in the fictional universe to justify an article. Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to the Star Wars wiki. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't transwiki. The information is false, possibly fancruft. The article is in no way canon (in its current form). Saberwyn 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we don't need tiny little articles about unverified fictional weapons, even if they are in the Star Wars univers. Madman 15:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would probably be notable if it were legit, but it's most likely not.-LtNOWIS 00:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z-98 Walker/Fighter

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in any way SW canon. Delete - Saberwyn 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've deleted the other contributions of this editor, and all of them appear to be hoaxes. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel New Bestine Infantry Transport

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a stub about a fan-created star wars starship. Delete. Saberwyn 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:FICT Agnte 11:56, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tribi Works Inc.

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it doesn't give much information. New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm hearing chants of "fancruft, fan...cruft!" in the background here; or am I just going crazy. Saberwyn 08:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for those not in the know, see Spam (Monty Python)) Saberwyn, thanks for a laugh. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirations Management

Self-promotion. Lincher 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOR. Stifle 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research or vanity as author of article cites himself. Delete B.Wind 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Durova 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't exactly follow where the article is going, and the phrase only gets 284 googles, many of which are false positives (i.e. "...aspirations, management..."). -Colin Kimbrell 22:10, 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 Speedied by User:Zoe Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Pardee

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, reads like a resume. Tufflaw 01:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable within field, if asked, should be rewritten. JAD77 9:19, 18 December 2005

• • In all fairness, it should be noted that this is the original author of the article in question. Tufflaw 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no proof, not even an assertion that anyone ever took notice of him. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a "Who-is-Who". Pilatus 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. Google wasn't much help either. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S[eedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PESwiki

Incomplete AfD, completing nomination. This is actually an article that has been deleted before. Current form, it's a non-notable website, and the article barely exceeds db-empty criteria. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I was actually in the middle of nominating this. NN wiki. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete if it is simply the recreation of a previously deleted article. Agnte 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable.Jcuk 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 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 No consensus. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SourceryForge

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. "NN" tells us nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Try explaining why you think something is non-notable, what steps you have taken to establish this, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 5,132,421 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending further discussion. -- JJay 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1800 articles, up to a thousand of them "seed" (empty) articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that is pretty impressive. Is there anything else I should know? -- JJay 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN wiki. Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability is not policy, it is just a guideline by which some but by no mean all Wikipedians choose to operate.Jcuk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn wiki --Jaranda wat's sup 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fun name. -- Natalinasmpf 16:25, 23 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 496,111 — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Like what? You just proved my point! Notability and WP:WEB are all that matter here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable. -- JJay 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? Did you go there (and see the only page: "Sorry, the wiki's been vandalized by spammers. I'm going to see if I can fix it")? Did you apply WP:WEB? Blindly keeping everything? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite surprised by your reaction. My comment was equal in length to your nom. As the nom, I fail to see why you withhold pertinent information regarding pages you nominate. Do you enjoy trying to make fools out of your voters? -- JJay 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not any more notable than your usual liberal websites. --Apostrophe 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now a non-notable website like this being kept–that is terrifying. Okay, not really. Still should be deleted, though. Lord Bob 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not Wikipedia policy just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. This website exists (admittedly only just, but it does) and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real content on the site. I agree with JJay that including more info in nomination headers would be nice, though. -Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Quest Omnipedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Alexa Ranking: 1,098,681. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? WP:WEB is the ONLY thing that should apply. That and the main page has less than 5000 hits and there are less than 1000 articles. This is a joke. If we have a standard and then ignore it for no discernable reason, what is the point? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? It seems unique. How many other wikis focus on Space Quest? At the very least, the info should be merged to one of our space quest pages. -- JJay 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Space Quest Omnipedia is currently one of the links on the Space Quest page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Kimbrell (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and thanks. I guess if the nom had merged and redirected it would have eliminated the need for this vote. -- JJay 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As a passionate Space Quest lover, I am glad that I have discovered this website exists. That doesn't mean the website is encyclopaedic, of course! Delete, completely unremarkable. It is merely a wiki, not the Space Quest community's oldest and most cherished site or anything (that would probably be the Virtual Broomcloset...it's the oldest, anyway). Lord Bob 13:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails to meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:WEB is just a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Existance and verifiability are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. It deserves an external link at Space Quest, but that's it. -Sean Curtin 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn .  Grue  14:54, 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. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not just a wiki. Also a website, which looks fairly significant in its field. Nearly 3,000 forum members, which isn't bad for an academic site. CalJW 03:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep maybe not NN. -- JJay 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep UniLang is most known for its forum. Its wiki may not be notable enough for an article but this isn't about the wiki this is about the UniLang site as a whole (the forum, the main site, the wiki). The UniLang forum has 2949 members which is notable for a forum. --Revolución (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears to be notable enough for inclusion, based upon my reading of WP:WEB. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems pretty prominent, considering the subject matter. -Colin Kimbrell 22:21, 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFAQ

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems important. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inportant how, exactly? Because WP:WEB and it's whopping 177 articles dissaggree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You should have stated that with your nom. Given your track record (numerous speedy keeps) and complete failure to present a case for deletion, you left me no other choice but to seek to prevent the possible harmful loss of valuable information that might result from a reckless or foolhardy AfD nomination. -- JJay 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, given my track record? You clearly haven't a clue of which you speak. All my AfDs are good faith. Simply insinuating they are not based on nothing and then ignoring standards to spite me? We all need to invest in some more wikilove. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mention your faith did I? I mentioned that you have repeatedly nominated and then speedily kept numerous articles that should never have come close to AfD. I won't list them here. I also won't discuss your habit of speedy deleting articles that do not fall within speedy guidelines. However, given that past history, I naturally tend to view you noms with some skepticism, particularly as you feel it is below you to justify them. -- JJay 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A half dozen questioned deletes out of more than 1600 is not a "habit," and the accusation is unfounded and bordering on PA. Three reversals, coincidentally on the same day, out of 13 months of nominating articles is not a track record. You are judging a book based on the first few paragraphs, where you shouldn't be judging at all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging based on what I saw in the last few days. I thought, based on your noms, that you were a new user. I stand corrected. -- JJay 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you not only judged me unfairly, you didn't even bother to check out my user page or past contributions or logs (where you would have seen that not only am I not new, I am an admin)?--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going by all those noms of the last day or two. I now know that I was being quite unfair. I take back and humbly apologize for my remark about your track record. That was wrong, and might be misconstrued as a personal attack. However, given that you are an admin, can you please end what is starting to look like a mockery of a farce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno. Also, thanks for reversing (speedily keeping) your other recent noms. I respect your character. -- JJay 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former I have speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation. You are a true gentleman and scholar. Furthermore, it is probably best to remain cautious on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno as the voting could still go either way and it may yet prove to be another in the unending series of classical music vanity scams I keep hearing about. -- JJay 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, the sarcasm of all your resposes here are frankly appaling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? I won't accuse you of making personal attacks, but can't you have the good grace to accept a compliment or an apology? -- JJay 10:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The Site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My son has a website (hosted by my email provider) and it is verifiable. So what? mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oooh, I exist, for that matter. And it's verified! Who wants to write my article (so I can speedy it)? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this standard every website on the internet should have a wikipedia entry. Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an inclusionist Wikipedian, I'd have no problem with that. jc.
      • Woah, then you're the most hardcore inclusionist i've come across, congrats :) Agnte 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dunno about that but thanks anyhow! *G* Seriously, if the article is verifiable, not scurrilous (spelling!!!), not obviously POV, I cant see what harm its doing by existingJcuk 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey, ah, but can we verify you exist by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia for doing so?! *G* Jcuk 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I could be a hoax... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• del. nn website. mikka (t) 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN website, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utetrly nn.  Grue  14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The wiki community benefits from more wiki's gaining visibility within the community, thus i see no problems with it. Jeff, I notice you went through the entire Category:MediaWiki websites and marked most for delition. My guess is these sites only help to spread the proverbial word and improve the code that wikipedia runs on. - MEP
• Delete - "WikiFAQ states that they hope that by..." How about telling us about what WikiFAQ has done for us lately rather than what they want to do. Endomion 07:25, 23 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHealth

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Need more info. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, this wiki has less than 200 articles. Less. Than. 200. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. So are you saying that's good? Because if you convince me it's not notable, I might change my vote. As in, my vote, could change -- JJay 09:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. It's also recent, being started on April. It's nice, but not notable. --Apostrophe 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wiki with 158 articles. It has been edited 11 times since December 13. Punkmorten 10:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Beautifully presented skin though, and I wish them well. --kingboyk 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Aggreed about the skin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:55, 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 delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MWUsers

NN wiki forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. -- JJay 03:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with what? Have you read WP:WEB? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really want to discuss your nominations? -- JJay 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. --Apostrophe 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A forum with 135 users fails WP:WEB. FCYTravis 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:56, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SailWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A sailing wiki. May be unique or unusual. -- JJay 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Existance, verifiability, and uniqueness are not, by themselves, grounds for inclusion, especially in the case of webpages. -Sean Curtin 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:56, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S23 Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. useful. -- JJay 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• For whom, exactlty? It has less than 125 registered users, less than 5500 total pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly for the users of those pages. However, if these facts are pertinent to the discussion, why were they not presented earlier? -- JJay 09:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable.Gateman1997 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is merely an opinion. Anyway, I think it's notable, so keep it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course im biased, cause im running the wiki myself. But i just wanted to throw in google results. Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200 for s23+wiki | Results 1 - 10 of about 62,400 for is-root.de+wiki. (same place,different URL) Mutante23 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MattisManzel 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC), another biased starter of s23-wiki.[reply]
• Keep Kunda23 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC), yet another biased member of s23 wiki, imploring those who have the power not to disassociate s23 wiki from the mother-meme-ship of Wikipedia.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SeattleWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reasonably active and useful for its (large) locality. We should be encouraging other wikis. CalJW 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Recentchanges shows twenty edits in two days. By what standards are you saying reasonably active? For a wiki that boasts less than 500 articles to boot. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Huge local interest. -- JJay 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Huge"? Okey Doke. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article, but I have no problem with it being an external link at Seattle, Washington. karmafist 06:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not voting, because as a participant in SeattleWiki I'm undoubtedly biased in its favor. However, allow me to point to a few examples of good work in that Wiki (much of it my own) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]
  • Last Exit on Brooklyn
  • PeaceWorks Park vigil
  • Seattle Hemp Fest
  • Seattle Coalition for Peace in the Middle East
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB.Gateman1997 19:40, 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 Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skwik

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Could be good home for all the band articles we delete. -- JJay 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. 571 Googles. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:WEB in any way. Agnte 16:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:57, 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. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecpedia

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Partly written by Jimbo Wales himself. CalJW 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? It's got a whopping 256 articles to it's name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. CalJW makes a good point. Has the nom checked these wikis out? Since the noms give me no info, I think I'll have to default to keep on all of them. -- JJay 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• EXCUSE ME? "Have I checked these out"? Are you applying accepted standards to these votes? I just said this wiki has 256 articles. I deleted 256 articles today alone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Accepted standards. It's funny you mention that. Where are the accepted standards for nominating race car drivers, award-winning violinists, and internationally-renowned infectious disease specialists to name a few of your recent choices? I would also be curious to know what standards you applied to your 256 deletions. I would hate to think that we might be excising vital submissions from new editors. Although, I'm sure that your speedies are only rarely overturned. -- JJay 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget top-tier college athletes who are nominated for deletion five minutes after article creation. Sawney 11:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. AfD is looking far too much like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey today. --Agamemnon2 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is well beyond the stage of innocent childhood games. The nom seems to feel he is defending the Normandy beaches on D-Day. He uses a machine gun to kill most incoming, then takes the wounded to AfD. However, like the Czech resistance fighters- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation - the underdogs will win out. -- JJay 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Its seems as if you're just voting keep to spite the nominator. Say what you will about other noms - this article doesnt meet WP:WEB, it doesnt even come close, so it should be deleted. Agnte 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My original comment above explained it fairly well. -- JJay 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking [9], so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it [10] , and one of those is this wikipedia entry. Agnte 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a slow growth does not make a project unnotable. Paul Carpenter 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm an admin on Infosecpedia. The site is not (IMO) notable enough to warrant an entry, and it's pretty much unmaintained now (have a look at recent changes -- pretty much all spam). — Matt Crypto 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A footnote at best. -Sean Curtin 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantryWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Need info to judge notability. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 281 articles. 281. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Again. Again. Thanks. Is 281 enough? Seems like a nice start to me. Of course, if you think that's not notable, maybe we could merge the info from your wiki noms into a wiki list of some type. Lists are always helpful, I find. Don't you agree?. -- JJay 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN wiki, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has fallen between the cracks, so I'm closing it myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Wiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Might be notable. -- JJay 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Too bad it isn't: 121 articles. 121. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the info. 121 you say? Can you repeat that? It might still be notable. -- JJay 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A better question is, do you believe that it is notable? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB, wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this myself as this seems to have slipped between the cracks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 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. —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Over 1,300 articles and accelerating. CalJW 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. How many Orthodox wikis exist? -- JJay 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A site's use of MediaWiki is irrelevant in determining notability. FCYTravis 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable enough. I've went there and I think I've heard of it mentioned online several places.--T. Anthony 10:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I'm one of the project's sysops, so I'm biased (I still get to vote!), but I have heard it being talked about it a good bit even outside of the Internet. —Preost ^talk contribs 10:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, notability is official Wikipedia Policy, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I cant see anything on that page that says anything about notability. Verifiability, yes, but not notability. Jcuk 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability is a proposed Wikipedia policy. —Preost ^talk contribs 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, but as of right now its only proposed policy.Jcuk 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well-maintained, informative place and with broad audience and editorship. Unlike the rest of wikicruft listed here it has notable context in wikipedia. mikka (t) 23:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per mikkalai. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- OrthodoxWiki isn't an obscure resource so its article shouldn't be deleted for allegedly being "non-notable". Critias 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not close to being notable, as based on WP:WEB. Traffic Rank for orthodoxwiki.org: 422,224 (not in top 10,000) [11]. 703 active users [12] (not over 5,000). No evidence that it has been the subject or national or international media attention. And having a few links from wikipedia doesn't demonstrate notable context. Agnte 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Heck, if Wookieepedia (Star Wars) can have it's own page, why can't this? Dumanov 01:28, 21 December 2005
• Delete nn.  Grue  15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a quality resource that can only become more notable in the future. --Pmsyyz 09:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this wiki is notable Yuckfoo 07:53, 28 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 FRIED. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fried human fucking

Delete. Patent nonsense. I originally attempted to speedy delete, but I respect Haukurth's changing to AFD. Tufflaw 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources providing notability of the idea are established. A Google search gives me nothing. I've added clean-up tags and contacted the new user who is writing the article. A pleasure to work with you, Tufflaw. - Haukur 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not even running a Google search on something like this. Author didn't verify his/her work with reliable sources, and for this particular case that satisfies me to vote delete. CanadianCaesar 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patent nonsense. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patently patent nonsense if ever I saw it... KC. 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really seeing it. I've heard of cannibalism and necrophilia; these things exist. It is disgusting, though. CanadianCaesar 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, dear Lord above, delete. Someone needs to have a word with this user. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 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 FCYTravis 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanborn UK

Non Notable forum (Alexa ranking 1,135,959). -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is not a web directory. Agnte 13:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, nothing else to make it special. - Bobet 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 16:28, 23 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 O Keep after votes by annons and new users were discounted. Jaranda wat's sup 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

Another so-called internet meme which will be irrelevant in ten years, if not already. Denni ☯ 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Informative!!
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is such an excellent source of info about Internet memes (among other things, of course).
• Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O RLY CanadianCaesar 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm not sure exactly why that was closed as a consensus to delete; and it may have gained notability since. Abstain. CanadianCaesar 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep it's a increadible meme spreading in the net. Keep this, is very interesting about speed of Internet memes.--Quackshot 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merging it with an some internet slang article would make it needlessly difficult to find. Kfroog 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• O KEEP Well written, informative, I've seen lesser articles on topics of much more importance. Agree with Kfroog. Tom Foolery 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• O KEEP. --Apostrophe 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep it's a well rounded, informative article on something that has been bugging people all over the internet... 'what is this o rly owl?' --Anonymous This user's seventh edit.
• Keep O RLY is very popular and i've used this page as an explination. --Ryu 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's third edit.[reply]
• Keep NaconKantari 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of the Internet memes which deserves to be kept. It's an interesting, funny, sophisticated and interesting meme - compared to the utterly puerile, juvenile and offensive Brian Peppers meme. FCYTravis 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now because it is relevant today, per above votes. If it turns out to be irrelevant in ten years, I'll gladly vote delete then. Wikipedia is beautiful for its fluidity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is relevant, probably should be referenced on the page on Internet jargon. --Thephotoman 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• YA KPY - It's a big enough meme. Darobsta 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was actually checking to see if there was an article on this. Was surprised to see it under VfD. Definitely noteworthy (especially as an indicator of how stupid internet memes can get -- ya, rly!). neckro 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NO WAI! Keep. Cernen 12:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this helpful, really. This user's only edit.
• Keep While memes could still be considered in their infancy, who can say what sort of sticking power they'll have? If this is still a problem in 10 years, I'll vote for deletion then. Acelin 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.[reply]
• Delete. I disagree with all justifications detailed above and consider this to be an utterly unencyclopedic topic. --Agamemnon2 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Agamemnon2. Reyk 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Thirded! This is completely not notable and prone to vandalism and copyright violation! --DJH47 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. w00t. Pablo_Mayrgundter 8:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep This is a part of internet culture that should be told! There are many other internet culture articles that should go before this one. This user's only edit.

• The Internet doesn't have a culture unless you count clueless ranting, illiterate spam email and advertising banners. --Agamemnon2 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Keep That Is As Strong As Possible This is so important..people should learn about the internet, and its fads. This user's eleventh edit in eight months.
• Keep this belongs on its own page apparently...  ALKIVAR™ 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was just wondering about the history of the o rly owls and was happy to stumble upon this page. Without its wikipedia entry, I wouldn't have known what it was. I think most popular memes belong on here. This user's second edit.
• Keep This is a lot more popular than most internet meme's, and i see it everyday. so what if its not relevant in 10 years, isnt that what HISTORY is for? Logging such things?. Jragar 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jragar's only edit, even though his contribs page turns up no hits at all.[reply]
• Keep Come on, its bloody brilliant. Which sycophant motioned for deletion? tut tut QrimmerQrimmer's 29th edit.

Comment: 29 edits, spread uniformly over a month? Works for me... -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant? You =do= lead a sheltered life. Denni ☯ 03:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not encyclopedic (as is the case with nearly all "internet memes"). --keepsleeping say what 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, is it less encyclopedic than Kilroy was here? The only difference I see is in age. Kfroog 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per Keepsleeping. WikiFanatic 03:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - graphics animation emblemic of pushing it past reasonable limits. [User:Metarhyme|Metarhyme]] 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for Academia I am currently using this article in my paper for Sociolingustics in my discussion on Language of the Internet, and that alone I feel suffices for reasons to keep this article. It contains information pertainate to my research. Nearly all article are prone to vandalism and that is not sufficient grounds on which to remove an article. As for those who claim it as unencyclopedic, I ask that you please give me your definition of encyclopedic. If you mean something that would someday appear in a professionally published encyclopedia, then I'm afraid I disagree with you on the premise of Wikipedia. The nature of internet hypertext over print is that it allows for a much larger base of information, so while this information would not be pertainate enough to justify listing in a printed medium, it contains relevant information that seekers of knowledge would care to know. As for the person who claimed that there is no such thing as internet culture, I beg to differ. Even among professional circles it is recognized that there is such a thing as internet culture. I may not be a lingustics major, and I'm taking this class for fun, but I do know enough to claim that the internet does have a culture, and that the language used within the internet does have a history. Slang has literary significance just like any other language feature, and that of the internet is no exception. If you're really desparate for proof that I really am using this for my paper, look up Professor S. Dart at Macalester College a few weeks from now after I turn in my paper and ask if I discussed O RLY. --D. Ly 23:35 Dec 18 2005 (CST) This user's third edit.
• weak keep... although I can't really see anyone typing this to find out about airports in Paris. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (it's a joke, ok?)[reply]
• Keep or speedy keep, exact search returns 204,000 hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This should not be deleted, as it is a great example of a deversity of a langauge that has grown up on the internet. To say, it defines the modern genteralion, as teens use it for text, and even dome adults use it as well, if they are in a hurry. User:Tehmadbluebear This user's only edit.
• Keep this article! I was here specifically looking for this, becuase I see it at least once a day on the forums I read and was really boggling over question: 'what's with o rly thing?' ~Ari 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's only edit.
• Keep - David Gerard 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dumb but notable. If it fades into non-notability in a year then we can talk about deleting it. - Stlemur 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable, and banish the puppets. Agnte 17:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepThe O RLY Owl is the best -- it's on par with All your base, etc. User:Tryndamere 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) This user's fifth edit, of which four have been AfD votes[reply]
• Keep "notable" meme. --SPUI (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is genius because it providers a pretty reliable place where everyone can share knowledge or use it. Most of it is kept in real time and even if you have the littlest knowledge which may seem ridicolous and would never be ever needed, you can contribute. Since an encylopedia should cover pop culture, and this word is part of the rising Internet phenomenom, it should be kept as it can be useful to someone who is doing a report on the ever expanding and changing cyberworld. SandBoxer 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article could use improvement, but the meme is indeed notable. --c3o 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if it's irrelevant in ten years I would think it should be kept for historical reasons. (internet phenomena and such).Garion96 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable internet meme. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Not quite up to the level of All Your Base, but I'd say this is the most pervasive meme of this year. A 02:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• O NOES! EXTREME Keep! One of the biggest memes to hit in a long time. It will (unfortunately) be with us for quite some time. Might as well document it. --Froggy 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• SRSLY Keep. Rly. Rampart 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• YA RLY keep. Next we'll delete the entry on the US Constitution, since that's looking to be irrelevant in 10 years. --66.92.84.190 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• O COMMENT: can we BJAODN this discussion and then drag it out whenever we're taking ourselves too seriously? ^_^ Marblespire 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this please erasing it does not make sense it is notable Yuckfoo 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I agree with ~Ari, I found this article useful in figuring out what was meant by 'o rly' CMJ 08:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe it should remain, as an example of a meme, since it is one of the largest to hit the internet, probably on par with the "Zero Wing". It definitely deserves to stay. axedesign 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pfctdayelise 13:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If All your base are belong to us has an article, this should too. Dan 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Ya rly!) The article is good, and the topic is fairly notable, IMO. — 69.211.123.29 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ya, RLY. Article is notable and part of internet culture, similar to all your base are belong to us. Those who say it isnt notable or encyclopedic, should understand that Wikipedia is not paper. Mystache 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this was removed, Then All your Base should be removed by the same logic. --Theredstarswl 00:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 200,000 on google Zig 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• O KEEP wheres the vote botten, it needs to be expanded
• Keep Like others, I came here specifically looking for this entry. Few would say that internet memes represent a high point in modern culture but they nonetheless form part of the social background of the medium. --Mizake 12:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Where would people go to find out what these kind of, admittedly obscure, pop-culture references actually mean, if not WikiPedia? It is notable, and unlike other sources, the information listed; i.e. origin, meaning, history/evolution is encyclopedic. It may be a insignificant fad, but if it had no listing, how would you know?
• Keep I agree with Mizake, this is a wonderful article on an obscure subject. This is one of the key components of Wikipedia, IMO. Not only informative, but a bit wacky.--droptone 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The meme is established and wide spread. It gets an extremely high number of hits on google and is thus notable. The article is appropriately sourced and is worthy of inclusion. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As you guys can probably tell this is a really biased vote. I guarantee you most of the "Keeps" are users from YTMND. Let a group of admins decide on what to do with this. It's just silly. --Tykell 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see good faith is alive and well on AFD! Uncyclopedia:O RLY? - David Gerard 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always fun to have your motives and background second guessed by someone who knows nothing about you. I've not cast aspersions on the motives of the 'Delete' voters, but then my interpretation of the vote here was not quite so cynical. Yeah, that comment annoyed me. Does it show? --Mizake 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion is inherently invalid in that the reasoning used to justify recommendation for deletion fails Assume Good Faith guidelines. Lumbergh 05:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Delete?! NO WAI!) This doesn't seem to violate any policies or anything... Besides, it's a useful article with helpful information! Think about forum newbies asking what this O RLY owl people keep talking about is- This really is the ONLY really GOOD source on the topic. llamapalooza87 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Usage is currently widespread enough to be worth coverage. If that changes, we can always re-evaluate the situation later, as others have noted in earlier votes. -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It can be hard for those who only see the end products to figure out how trends, jokes, memes, etc. begin (Ever missed an episode of the Simpsons and subsequently failed to get a reference everyone else did?)- it's good to have an explanation. And it's a perfectly cromulent article. -- Jake 00:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It's a popular meme. —Zazou 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Certainly nowhere near the league of AYBABTU, but at least deserves an article. Turnstep
• Keep a very large meme, definetly notable. Staxringold 16:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? Ja, wirklich! --Kotjze 22:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, please. Someone just said that in an internet forum another day, and I had no idea wath it meant. Keep please. 22 December 2005
• Keep The O Rly owl rocks. When future generations come to the internet, shouldn't they be allowed to do research on what an "O Rly" owl is?
• Don't Delete -- I fail to see the justification in whimsically deleting articles arbitrarily declared to be unencyclopaedic at the spontaneous and unsubstantiated decision of a small but loud group of misanthropes who do not understand the relevance of and importance of documenting the history and evolution of the internet. The O RLY owl is an important piece in the aforementioned history and evolution, and therefore ought to remain. Lumbergh 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article should be kept, O RLY is a quickly growing internet meme and the phrase has been around for quite some time. This article is especially important for communities such as 4chan where the O RLY Owl originated. richjkl 06:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' In 40 years people will want to know this stuff. Endomion 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]