< November 1 November 3 >

Purge server cache

November 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

46 Time Traveling Lawn Gnomes[edit]

Song by two people without articles. No third-party coverage, unverifiable. Kappa 17:59, 2 November 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(?!?) 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A kiss could be deadly[edit]

Accordinging to policy this link is enough on its own to keep them in. AKCBD album review - also, search them in msm or alta vista - you'll get different results. Plus, they are the definitive band of the Southern California Electroclash scene. The style was originally made big in NY and they are the biggest and most active SoCal dance/punk band. The East Coast style focuses more on hipster issues while AKCBD is setting a precedent by focusing on darker topics. The west coast version incorporates more guitar and live drums and is not solely synth and drum machine driven. The policy specifically says its just a guideline and the band has been featured in a major music publication, has toured 3x and is representative of a certain style and place. It almost feels like Keepsleeping has a personal vendetta aginst the band. Leave it in


does not meet WP:MUSIC keepsleeping say what 23:49, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A&A Global Industries[edit]

spam placed here By the subject (check the history page and see who created the article). Also completely NN, and a copyright violation since most of it was cut ans pasted from their webpage. Bachrach44 14:49, 2 November 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 per Vegaswikian. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 02:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air conditioning unit[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:00, 2 November 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 Redirect to Hamster. --Titoxd(?!?) 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albino hamsters[edit]

Dicdef. The species referred to is Golden hamster, but other species have albinos as well.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Bassi[edit]

Article doesn't have much information other than he's a lawyer in Italy; no particular reason given as to why this is encylopedic. Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:20, 2 November 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.  Denelson83  05:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zaidlin[edit]

Previously kept as no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zaidlin since no one commented on it. Found this tagged afd again while running Crypticbot, and like Kjkolb, I'm completely unable to verify that he exists. —Cryptic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnibble[edit]

Delete: unless someone can provide a source. On Google, "arachnibble" only brings up this article.Bjones 15:14, 1 November 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 as rewritten DES (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artifakt[edit]

Delete NN band. I found no matches via allmusic.com & Google PJM 21:58, 2 November 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, per discussion and official policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asgervalen[edit]

Probable hoax. No Google results for "Asgervalen". Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not an authority. It's a search engine. (previous unsigned comment by 130.15.82.217 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon ltd/Temp[edit]

corporate vanity/promo page, probably a copyvio of subject's own website [6]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys of Computer Science[edit]

Bad Boys of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a no lonoger published webcomic meets almost no standards. Their are no refrences even from the webcomic page. The text on the page is written poorly. A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics as I am sure their are more that need to be deleted than just this. The Placebo Effect 14:11, 13 February 2007 (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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basiliaz[edit]

uncited Tom Harrison (talk) 02:38, 2 November 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. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beanpole family[edit]

Belongs in a science dictionary BeteNoir 05:29, 2 November 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. Ral315 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Modirrousta[edit]

vanity — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Web and E-Publications Festival --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of MIT dormitories. —[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley Hall (MIT)[edit]

Dorm at MIT. No assertion for notability. Searching Google, I can't find anything that sets this apart from any other dorm on any other campus [8]. Delete.--Isotope23 17:42, 2 November 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(?!?) 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond fate[edit]

Delete. NN band. According to their website they've been together for 1 year and are just putting out a demo. PJM 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep). – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Updated to no consensus 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliotheca[edit]

Dicdef, apparently, containing little more than an interwiki link to a non-existent article in German. -GTBacchus 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under criteria A6 and G4. - ulayiti (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelight.ru[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronchial fork[edit]

Unverified "product" that has 0 hits on Google. Looks suspiciously like advertising - or more likely vanity. Ifnord 23:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Insecticide. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bug spray[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:08, 2 November 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(?!?) 06:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry student society[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:35, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Armas[edit]

Vanity. Not noteworthy, claims notability where there is none. Jogloran 07:24, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cinekinetic and Mike young[edit]

Cinekinetic was previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinesaddle; however, the discussion there was cut short due to both articles being tagged as copyvios. This one's now back, and since it isn't directly cut-and-pasted from their web site so far as I can tell, I'm hesitant to tag it as a speedy under G4. Regardless, it's still advertising, it's still of very dubious notability, and it's still gotta go. —Cryptic (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. company does have some recognition. 1800 hits on Google. 581 on yahoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.176.34 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC), creator of article[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(?!?) 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cityside[edit]

One of a series of articles on Afd promoting a non-notable group.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Click environments[edit]

Badly titled neologism. I've never heard any web interface being known as a "click environment", and neither has google. Delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:44, 2 November 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 redirect to closet, and ignore the sock- and meatpuppets. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coat closet[edit]

Someone has deleted this article without saying why they did it. I agree that it should be deleted, but it think that should be explained first CarDepot 20:51, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin davin[edit]

Another non-notable musician bio stub BeteNoir 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus' nationality[edit]

Strong delete This page is ultimately pointless in the long run considering history has established Copernicus as a Pole (by his last name origin and citizenry) whether or not he, in fact, was a German. An entire wikipedia page is not necessary for this discussion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 00:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creasman[edit]

Looks to be a nonsense/vanity page that's been up for 5 months. Google gives nothing notable for the name Creasman. JJay 15:53, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curbing[edit]

I'm fairly sure that this article is mostly made up, and that its only notable instance occured in the film "American History X" Holdek (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Wikipedia and Wiktionary require adequate references to reputable sources for material written in their respective mainspaces. I am less familiar with the precise requirements of Wiktionary, but am fairly sure that anecdotal references to usage among friends will not satisfy them. If there are references available that would meet Wiktionary's source requirements, I agree with you that transwiki+delete would be acceptable. As it stands however, I know only that this entry is best deleted from Wikipedia. encephalon 21:55, 5 November 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(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cwelve[edit]

Admitted neologism, made up by someone from a high school. No suggestion of notability. Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:54, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport (rock band)[edit]

Non-notable, band vanity keepsleeping say what 21:15, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta notre dame[edit]

NN basketball team in Ireland who play in a community center. Might be a youth team. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demetra Raven[edit]

Extremely minor actress with three guest appearances in TV series and two movie roles in which her characters had no names. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1496302/. Reads like vanity, to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 2 November 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 as non-notable. - ulayiti (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diary-X[edit]

Non-notable site 12.22.157.254 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JoJan. Jkelly 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diya NYC[edit]

Obvious hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ali Empire. I see absolutely no reason, other than Haworth's insistence, not to speedy delete this and all associated pages created by the same user. --Nlu 06:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unverifiable and surely a hoax. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 2 November 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. 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embee[edit]

Non-notable and perhaps vanity Ifnord 17:58, 2 November 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 MythBusters Episodes. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 6 (Mythbusters)[edit]

We really don't need articles on individual episodes. We have a perfectly good and to-the-point list at MythBusters Episodes--DooMDrat 11:41, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etherpron[edit]

Hoax/neologism. Flowerparty■ 02:00, 2 November 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 Redirect to Nausea (book). --Titoxd(?!?) 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Existential nausea[edit]

Wikipedia is not a humor dictionary BeteNoir 06:06, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free London Musical Press[edit]

No google hits. Same IP used to create article for The Spunkers which is also on afd as presumable vanity for a non-notable band at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spunkers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, 2 November 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free World Dialup[edit]

Advert, and, despite being 9 years old, probably not notable. Better to list website on a list from Voice over IP article. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeones[edit]

Additionally I should point out that judging someone's work by unrelated contributions is a bit useless if the registered (!) user has only started contributing. The fellow has made his first contribution on November 2nd, which was just about 5 hours before his article was marked for deletion (which is not the point here - my reasoning for keeping was argued above) and his contribution history was used as an argument against the article - thus being ad hominem (including the fact that the list at the beginning of this discussion was claimed by User:Texture to be the creating user's edits for the day which is just the half-truth; as I already mentioned, it's his first contribution to Wikipedia ever, see Special:Contributions/CWonroy). JM.Beaubourg 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In judging whether a website and immediate links to it in other articles are spam and not real what do we have to use as a guide? Every day that passes where this user makes no other contributions furthers a simple belief that this was a spam attack. New users do not solely add one website to many articles and perform no other edits. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It took me 2 days and three hours to make further contributions after adding the first article, and the following edits were pretty much related to my first contributions. All I'm saying is, that this is not considered a valid argument. And if this were a spam attack, then it took the folks at Freeones an astounding four years (well I don't know the exact date when Wikipedia was set up), as Freeones was started in 1998. I feel like Wikipedia can also be used describe the functions of internet business, of which sex-related website make an important part (I mean: who owns what, what practices do they use - so it can also be used as a critical guide). JM.Beaubourg 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by saying that I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH FREEONES or their webmasters or anything; If I was, I think I probably would have been versed enough to make a more detailed entry. Second, I can see why my contributions have raised suspicions since they are the only contributions I made in that time frame and they did all relate. I guess that's fair game for debate (although unintended). But JM.Beaubourg raised a good point and it leads me to ask, would it have been better if I would have interspersed my contributions with other random contributions to make the more diversified? I don't think that's a requirement.

By the way, if you look at the Sky Lopez revision history, you will find that in addition to adding the Freeones link, I fixed a caption error at the top of the article. When Texturε reverted my edit back to the previous version, the caption error remained. Another user, Brim has since fixed the caption error.
If you look at the Crystal Klein article's revision history as well, you find another mistake by Texturε. Without comparing the article's history with my edit, he reverted back to the original article. The Freeones link was already there, and what I did was (1) Add a link to the new Freeones Article and (2) add Warning: Contains links to explicit material. to the link. It did not exist when I edited the article, and therefore it did not exist when Texturε reverted it back.
The same can be seen in the Dalene Kurtis article history where the Freeones link already existed and I just added a link to the Freeones article.
This is all just to show that we can all make mistakes and is not an attack on anybody. It also shows that even if insignificant, I did actually make other contributions.

Anyway, I strongly feel that this entry, in and of itself, is okay as encyclopedic material. As for the links I created on the other articles, delete them if you have to as that is where the real debate lies.

On a side note, consider that the website for Gibson Research Corporation is listed on Wikipedia and it's Alexa rating is currently 17867 [11]. Then that raises the question, is the Alexa website ranking the determiner for encyclopedic material?; of course not. But, considering how many websites are ranked by Alexa, 561 has to be somewhat significant. Howstuffworks is ranked 1086 [12] which surprised me. And lastly, WebMD is 622 [13].

I am sorry for the trouble I have caused, and I hope the issue resolves itself. Thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. –CWonroy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freezer[edit]

Someone has deleted this article without explaining why. I don't agree with the deletion. A refrigerator and a freezer are not the same thing, so should have separate articles. CarDepot 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added in content to the article this evening. The content needs someone else to to prrof it and rewrite where needed. But I think it lifts the article up. Stu 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific on the "full" errors of errors so they can be corrected? Stu 00:32, 4 November 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garrius Carpenterus[edit]

Looks like complete nonsense (presumably insulting someone called Gary Carpenter), but not quite qualifying as patent or vanity. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GeeseUK[edit]

Non-notable Halo gaming clan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:08, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Rivera III[edit]

The claims made in the article are frankly unbelievable about a 19 year old, and I get no hits on Google for "George Rivera" with "Trips Records" or "Trips Gear". "George Rivera" with "Albuquerque" in the search gets a lot of hits, but it isn't clear that any of them relate to the subject of the article. Some of them seem to be about the governor of a tribe of Pueblo indians. The article should be deleted unless substantiated by reliable sources. DavidConrad 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence presented in the article that he is the best known person in that town and Google clearly refutes the claim. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie and the Chipmunks[edit]

Unverifiable. No Google results for "Georgie and the Chipmunks". No relevant results for "Georgie Chipmunks heavy metal Poland". Brought to you by the same anonymous user responsible for Klep dim Trep. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:26, 2 November 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 (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Cobb[edit]

Non-notable, probably vanity. He has written one book that "may or not be published". Ifnord 15:06, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HAMPSHIRE HALLOWEEN[edit]

Article about a Halloween party. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* that said, a merge seems appropriate in any case. Jessamyn 20:28, 2 November 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 as vanity supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Boepple[edit]

not notable, possible vanity We99 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I agreed with some earlier comments that Mr. Boepple does not need a Ph.D. to receive the international commercial recognition that he has receievd. There is a complete justification for keeping Hans Boepple is that he has made many contemporary developments classical music. Even if Hans Boepple is humble enough to refer to them as extraordinary secrets, those contributions deserve to be kept because his work is unique within the music profession. There are so few Bach purists, so few tenured music teachers, old school international competitors of international renown, Western European music experts, purists who respect the international developments of the last century, who have composed works with the unique key sequences that Mr. Boepple brings to the keyboard. It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia if those who delete him do so without trying to find his songs and listen to them. I am not sure who is qualified to delete Mr. Boepple without listening to his compact discs, reading more about him, or seeing him perform in concert. I vote that we trust the neutrality and honesty of SCUMATT that Mr. Boepple has no knowledge of these articles or of SCUMATT's attempts to independently document his story (that more than satisfies my definition of history). Mr. Boepple's accomplishments are independently and adequately documented in Santa Clara University's website and the SCU alumni association magazine and written by people of color and people of gender who speak highly of him. Every reporter knows it is necessary to interview the source directly in order to have an accurate story. I feel the stories about Mr. Boepple are either accurate because he is quoted as a direct source or they are developed independently and are therefore neutral. These salaried university employees do not have any publicist commission interests in overstating or understating the accomplishments of Mr. Boepple so we can safely assume that they are stated at the correct level because it is a university publication that has passed editorial or some peer review muster. We also need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple. Mr. Boepple's music star rivals have every incentive to give him a poor review so those reviews need to be disconted. We need to filter out any biased comments from jealous individuals who have not earned the tenure that Mr. Boepple has. He has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist if not a master musician. Many other music chairs lack the specialization in piano performance that Mr. Boepple has. I think if we document all the money that Mr. Boepple has received for any of his music expertise, we can conclude that he is a music professional and therefore deserves privilege of an article solely for the payments he has received for his music which seems far more relevant than answering questions about a degree he could have earned before any of his students were born. Golf players are accorded respect for the size of their money purse or their professional status. Why can't Mr. Boepple be accorded some respect for the size of his professional purse? He is more than a dallying amateur who could not hack it in the competitive world of classical piano and then needed to earn a living from one of those ultra-high paying low-class televised professions that lack the artistic respect that Mr. Boepple obtains freely. Mr. Boepple has earned the role of a tenured classical professional who consistently speaks the truth and should be respected for his position instead of constantly flip-flopping between professions because he does not know what his profession is. His sphere of influence is not restricted to a monolithic organization's monolithic website. If knowledge of Mr. Boepple is ubiquitous common knowledge, then I vote that this article should be allowed to document HIS story about what his job as a music chair is. Musicpro 02:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Musicpro 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er...is the above new user writing in response to my request for references? "We can safely assume that the SCU alumni association magazine has ... some peer review muster"? We need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple...? And he has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist...? Thank you, I quite understand, I'm now fully ready to vote delete. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 8 November 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 redirect to Head-Royce School. —Cleared as filed. 04:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head Royce School[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of the Zucchini People[edit]

Non notable website/student paper. Was published between autumn 94 to spring 95? Then moved online? A Google search for the term, gives 30 links. - Hahnchen 23:33, 1 November 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(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagolantern[edit]

non-notable, bordering nonsensical.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 according to the deletion policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Baller[edit]

An essay and original research. Thue | talk 22:09, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inside air conditioning unit[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:04, 2 November 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. Ral315 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Web and E-Publications Festival, International Web Festival[edit]

Non-notable event. Google search INTWEBFEST gets 67 results. Festival run by Behrooz Modirrousta, also up for deletion. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:30, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vs. Iran and Russia War[edit]

Original research abakharev 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - there is no theological proof that Magog is Russia - it's simply speculation that was common during the cold war era. --Bachrach44 16:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You underestimate the tenacity of fundies. A great many of them are convinced of the connection, and fundamentalism in general tends to be somewhat... how can I put this diplomatically?... resistant to outside arguments. Haikupoet 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep (3 keeps, 3 deletes discounting the last vote which is incorrectly signed by an anon IP). - ulayiti (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog[edit]

Page about a minor blog. It appears to fall under WP:NOT: "self-promotion" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I vote to delete. RJH 17:16, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Considine[edit]

Vanity. Suspect non-notability, but not 100% certain, so using AFD instead of Speedy. Definitely totally non-encyclopedic. TexasAndroid 19:34, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang QiLi[edit]

Most likely a hoax; user also contributed to these edits at [22] and [23] --Confuzion 12:57, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Manos[edit]

Smells like a hoax - article created by anon who created Henry Almond hoax on same day and inserted links to Manos and Almond on their respective birthdate pages. Careful googling indicates existence of an Australian named John Manos who has in fact won a medal for his athletic feats - in pistol shooting, not football/rugby/whatever. Your thoughts, brethren and cistern? DS 13:31, 2 November 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 redirect. Uncle G 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Hills[edit]

This article is currently a duplicate of Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders) article. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the editor has done. The original page I created was simply named Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders), the user then went on to move this page to Kathy Beale (this being the previous marital name of the character), and then, instead of using the automatic move page, simply created Kathy Hills - Hills being the maiden name.

However, though the character of Kathy is divorced, she still posses the Mitchell name as can be seen on the BBC character profile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/characters/character_content/character_kathy_m.shtml

Whatever way, a duplicate is not required.

EastEnders the great 18:16, 2 November 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 redirect to Party. Titoxd(?!?) 06:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keg party[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 November 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(?!?) 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith hartzell[edit]

Probably vanity. Notability assertion is not credible: Google has heard of neither any entomologist by this name nor the award he supposedly received. The attempted image link goes to a staff picture at a fireplace and cookstove import and sales company. --Tabor 21:40, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiarein[edit]

vanity page, NN, is probably spam. Google has zero hits. Bachrach44 15:11, 2 November 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, A7. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Lebkuchen[edit]

A hoax. This "Nicolas Gingerbread" was supposedly the first husband of Magda Goebbels. Uppland 07:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all of them. - ulayiti (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klep dim Trep and related articles[edit]

NN band/group. Not found on google, allmusic, and is therefore unverifiable as well as not passing WP:MUSIC 158.36.225.169 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I'm the anon user that afd'ed this article, just had some problems with wp/sessiondata. Bjelleklang - talk 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Combining AFDs for articles related to this band (by same author) for efficiency. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klep dim Trep
  • Hyrnia Records
  • Gary Prys
  • Dafydd Owain
  • Joni Rhydderch
  • Cledwyn Rhydderch
  • Trefor Hapus
  • Dai Jones
  • Rhydderch a'i Fab
NOTE: Relisted on Nov 2 AFD log, as there were other related articles added to the nomination. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not about being against the Welsh language, it's about removing an article about a band that can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever that means, please do not engage in personal attacks -- SoothingR(pour) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this band. They are not on Google, or much of anywhere else but I remember going to a gig once and they were the top billing. I admit it's bread and butter stuff, but it does exist and to delete it is to delete the existence, on the net, of a little known germano-welsh gem.

Comment: It doesn't matter if you say you can vouch for it, as long as the information can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I found this page, and saw the comments against the band. They DO exist, and, believe it or not, are quite good! They played a university gig (Aberystwyth probably, though it might have been Cardiff) back when I was a student and they really have a solid fanbase, most of which were good guys. So I plead, for them, keep them on!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, oddly enough, I'm from the area, and it definitely is notable. --Titoxd(?!?) 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTAR[edit]

Non-notable radio station, advertising. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:10, 2 November 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 as vanity. Could maybe have been speedied as well, since there is no real assertion of notability. - ulayiti (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Jane Foley[edit]

Student vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove or alter peoples' comments on this page. If anybody removes or alters other peoples' comments, they can expect to be blocked immediately. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:49, 4 November 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 moved to Lemon Laws, kept there. Titoxd(?!?) 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon law[edit]

This article is anything but encyclopedic Isolani 15:34, 2 November 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 from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeveL (webcomic)[edit]

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk · contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk · contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
  2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
  3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 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 redirect to closet. Sockpuppets, will you please quiet down for a little? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linen closet[edit]

Someone keeps deleting this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's incorrect about it ? StuRat 19:23, 3 November 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(?!?) 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods that cause unpleasant urine odors[edit]

Unencyclopedic list. The fairly well-known asparagus urine effect is discussed in the asparagus article. The rest is, in my opinion, not worth it to merge anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences[edit]

Strong delete Another addition to the listmania craze. All of the people presented in the first section of this list are accounted for in the list on the main page (under scientists and social scientists), and the second section are just repeats from other lists. Finally, there isn't even a list for Members of the French Academy of Sciences <-----even that would be pointless though. 72.144.114.22 10:47, 1 November 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(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of kanji by group[edit]

Wiktionary material that isn't even as complete as what's already there Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 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 Marskell 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley)[edit]

Appears to be about a concert, seems to be vanity, or at least NN. Rogerd 23:23, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LoveSac[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 7 Studios[edit]

Non-notable website. NatusRoma 10:20, 2 November 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy English[edit]

Hoax/joke. There is an author by the name of Lucy English, but this is not her. I was unable to find any book titled "Going Nower fast", or assuming a misspelling, "Going Nowhere Fast" by this author. Nor was I able to find any such award as the Apple Prize for literature (although there's a Golden Apple Prize for children's literature). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... no votes recorded first time around.. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:34, 2 November 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(?!?) 01:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madden Planet[edit]

Non-notable Madden video game fansite. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Madden Planet We are a very notable and longest standing Madden site out there. We have been reconized by EA for quite some time and have exclusive early info on Madden and other EA games on a regular basis. I am new to this site so I hope that I did not post this in the wrong place.

Damon


Damon


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mapletip[edit]

NN website ad. Destroy all ads --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 2 November 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, five days are up. Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati Rick Carter[edit]

Delete per nom. Copyvio http://www.geocities.com/jiggs2000_us/Maseratirick.html LichYoshi 07:56, 2 November 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.

Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Smillie[edit]

Non notable. A google search for "Mason Smillie" yields six hits, none of which (except a sentence in the Wikipedia article for Tyson Beckford, which the author of this article added to that one) have anything to do with the subject of this article. FuriousFreddy 23:31, 2 November 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 redirect to Bathroom. Titoxd(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master bathroom[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:10, 2 November 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 redirect to Bedroom. Titoxd(?!?) 06:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master bedroom[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:57, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuricon[edit]

Pure advertising of a non-encyclopedic future event. Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 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 redirect to Appalachian Mountain Club. - ulayiti (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mizpah Spring Hut[edit]

Most of the text is duplicated here, and as of right now I don't see a reason to keep it a seperate page. Basically, this article is already merged with the AMC article, and i see little reason not to delete and redirect. jfg284 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you know, i figured it was that easy...but i wasnt sure. so i went ahead and did this. but this is also kind of a test, as there are 7 other similar articles to be merged (the other huts) and i want to see what the consensus is.jfg284 22:37, 2 November 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 redirect to Reservoir Dogs. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Freddie Orange[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:36, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Munib[edit]

Nonencyclopedic, borderline nonsense, possible attack page. Speedy tag has been stripped twice, at least once by author (other was an IP). --Trovatore 17:33, 2 November 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 Redirect to muscle. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscles[edit]

About the nickname of a fellow of unknown identity who tried to get this nickname copyrighted. Notability not indicated, no proof provided and likely to be unverifiable sufficiently for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 18:10, 3 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mystii[edit]

Doubtful information (Google), fancruft, POV, opinion, speculation &c Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 2 November 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 as spam supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net Fusion[edit]

This is extremely short and without detail. Also, this is just an advertisement for Net Fusion. So, this is short, uninformative, an advertisement, unencyclopedic, and many other things. Oh yeah, I vote to delete. Note: When I posted this, there was one sentence there. Sprited Spheniscidae 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as either a test page (G2) or vandalism (G3). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as non-notable. (You can't merge and delete by the way, it's against the GFDL.) - ulayiti (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Hall[edit]

A single dorm housing less than 100 people at Harvey Mudd College. I propose that we merge what's useful into HMC's section on dorm life and then delete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page is no less useful than articles such as the one on Bexley_Hall_(MIT)...

...which is also up for deletion now. — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page enhances the depth and usefulness of wikipedia. But, I would like to improve it... how could I change the page to make it more suited to Wikipedia? Changes that I plan to incorporate soon include:

other suggestions are welcome.


Thanks for the feedback. Rdchambers 08:01, 2 November 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 redirect to List of Pokémon episodes. Titoxd(?!?) 06:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Official Pokemon Episode list[edit]

Already covered in List of Pokémon episodes. --Daniel Lawrence 23:22, 2 November 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(?!?) 23:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Shirt Tuesday[edit]

Delete. Very cute but not notable PJM 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that as well. PJM 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's relatively unknown and local is the very reason it's not notable. Indium 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's gaining popularity and like it says in the article it is being introduced in several universities across America. I think that people would like to know the origins of the holiday they participate in/observe others participating in.

If you want me to take that comment seriously, then please provide some good, verifiable, source citations, such as online-accessible newspaper articles, that show that it really is being celebrated in "several universities across America." I believe this "holiday" is a friendly custom between a small number of friends in a couple of living groups. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable; that is, statements resting only on the authority of the contributor are not acceptable if they've been seriously challenged. I've been wrong before about things that sounds like jokes or hoaxes; when people have produced verifiable evidence I've changed my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 5 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Cross and Circle (Crux Orbis)[edit]

uncited; original research Tom Harrison (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As all entries on secret societies cannot be fully substantiated, if this article is to be deleted it then follows that all entries on secret societies must be deleted. Judging by the fact that IP addresses involved in suggesting this page for deletion are from the Washington DC / Georgetown area, requests for deletion are clearly motivated by reasons other than Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.255.62 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 19:14:03 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the other secret societies have citations. I looked for some for this one, and didn't find any. If you have a couple of good solid citations, maybe from college newspapers, I would reconsider my vote for deletion. Let me also point out that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:00, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ospedia[edit]

A visit to the site indicates that the project never got off the ground. It claims to house 2 articles, and no updates have been made in recent history. It essentially does not exist. NymphadoraTonks 04:45, 2 November 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 redirect to Air conditioning. The socks have been blocked -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside air conditioning unit[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (no consensus to BJAODN, but someone could do it if they wanted to, I'm not at all opposed to the idea). - ulayiti (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overlord Smurf[edit]

Tagged as nonsense speedy - and it isn't. But given it was created by User:Overlord Smurf I'm not exactly optimistic (no vote) --Doc (?) 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) -Doc (?) 00:48, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P. Briddy[edit]

Alias for non-notable college DJ. No relevant google hits. JJay 19:41, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinthin[edit]

Article is only a definition, and appears to be a hoax: link brings up a black page in Safari...dave souza 00:47, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Rock and Roll[edit]

This page is on a campus radio program, likely written by the show's host. I believe it contravenes the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. WP policy requires that all articles in the main namespace "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." Since Wikipedia cannot conduct original research, nor put its articles through traditional methods of fact-checking and peer-review, all contributions to the mainspace should be based strictly on external sources that are reputable publications. If the subject of the article does not have at least a minimal body of work devoted to it, such as a newspaper clipping/report, magazine article, book, thesis, or other publication that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, it cannot be written about in the WP mainspace. Articles are required to comply with the three cardinal mainspace policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. A subject that easily meets the WP:V (and the related WP:RS) requirements, such that multiple, independent reputable publications on the subject are extent, is said in common Wikipedia parlance to be notable. This does not appear to be the case with this radio show (nor its host, P. Briddy, also on AFD). Thus, delete. encephalon 21:57, 2 November 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(?!?) 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prospecting for customers[edit]

as well-written as this is, wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I have already transwikied this to Wikibooks (though I may not have done it quite properly as it was my first transwiki. Someone who knows what they are doing should really check on it). Now what? I don't see any other option but delete Jacqui ★ 03:54, 2 November 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal Insurance Services[edit]

It's an advert! DJ Clayworth 18:42, 2 November 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 and redirect to Harrow School. - ulayiti (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rendalls House and Bradbys House[edit]

In many countries, people may be familiar with the concept of "houses" in schools. In countries where the concept is not used, think of the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter mythos. While a page on Harrow School is essential (being probably the second-best-known public school in England after Eton College), separate articles on the houses is without any doubt TMI, even after considering WINP. No useful information to merge into parent. Chris talk back 00:09, 2 November 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 as band vanity. - ulayiti (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rese'vor Dogs[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete.--Isotope23 18:04, 2 November 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 to redirect Rock Bottom to Professional wrestling throws and delete Big Herk. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Bottom & Big Herk[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(?!?) 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailorbirds[edit]

Unverified content, no references. Google search turns up results for a cartoon character, but nothing for an actual feathered creature. Choice quote from the article: Often ,the babies forget to take off the acorn helmits and they get stuck on their heads. Unless someone who knows their birds can verify its existence, then perhaps this belongs on WP:BJAODN. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:03, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Society of the Seven[edit]

uncited; original research Tom Harrison (talk) 15:03, 2 November 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, votes by recently-created accounts discarded per the Deletion policy. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEJ, Students for economic justice[edit]

Article about a local branch of a national organization (which itself has no article); not notable enough for a separate article. tregoweth 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iammaggieryan5:20, 2 November 2005 (User has only made two edits, one here and one on the page in question - — Haeleth Talk)that is not true check my ip i have been editing pages since september and have edited a number of pages as per below.Iammaggieryan 09:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • strong keep the article has been significantly modified since the delete and specifically addresses the two posted reasons for deletion. The article is not, and was not intended to be, about a chapter of a national organization. Rather, this is about a major activist organization at a big ten university in Michigan. The article documents two major instances of police monitoring that made national news and thus contributed to broader discussions of civil liberties and privacy in the US. jimotron 1:42, 3 November 2005
  • Delete per nom. Strong delete for blatant sock puppetry. Ifnord 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is sock puppetry? I'm new and still reading through the rules. jimotron 3, November 2005
      • Please see Internet sock puppet. Ifnord 04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ifnord, thank you for your response and the definiton. I looked it up just before I received your message. I did not create fake accounts. Please check the IP's of corser and iammaggieryan. I asked them both for help - iammaggieryan did considerable work on United_students_against_sweatshops and corser did not have time to do many edits. We're trying to work with the moderators, so please let us know what we can do to improve the articles.jimotron, November 3
        • Or rather, excuse me, she contributed to United_Students_Against_Sweatshops. I didn't know when I went to make the SEJ page about the capitoliation guidelines, and we both worked on that page until we learned about the lowercase version of United_students_against_sweatshops. The history would be on the other page. jimotron, November 3
        • Um I am not a sock puppet, and it makes me sad to think that you think i am a sock that fits over jimotrons hands. Check my ip, i've also done changes to SEJ, USAS, policy debate, pfizer stuff, and minor changes to the (many many) grammatical mistakes contained within wiki. Like that everyone thinks the possessive form of its is it's. damn i hate that. iammaggieryan, November 3
  • Delete. Non-notable of course. *drew 04:57, 5 November 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.  Denelson83  06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sewer baby[edit]

Not notable movie project BeteNoir 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Movie Project Mutai 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC). Admittedly, anything this controversial deserves keeping. BeteNoir 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Movie contains many references to people and places already appearing in Wikipedia like Lung Leg, Richard Kern, and Sonic Youth's EVOL album. Also, Mike Etoll just won first prize at a Minneapolis film festival.- Mutai 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Article creator[reply]
  • Delete A Google search returned 374 results see [32]. Notability of the film doesn't seem to extend much beyond Minneapolis where a local TV station mentioned it in its coverage. No entry on IMDb indicates that this film is not currently notable beyond Minneapolis. Capitalistroadster 06:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster --JAranda | watz sup 06:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, before I start making sewage jokes. tregoweth 07:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just doesn't establish notability, even if one of the people involved in the project does have a photo of Stephen King with a prosthetic mask. -- Captain Disdain 07:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. (Oh, and make some sewage jokes, I'd like to hear some!!!) Marcus22 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster.--Isotope23 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculative and unverifiable. Plus any film that relies for credibility on somoene not having turned up to see it being made is probably not going to be No. 1 at Blockbuster :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definition of "notable" found throughout web does not exclude several of the people mentioned in this entry. There is no scope required to be considered "notable."

Mike Etoll may better be described as "infamous" in many circles, not all of them confined to Minneapolis. Though his name may not appear extensively on the web, his notoriety is extensive, specifically among "lo fi" realms, e.g. underground filmmaking, theater, punk rock, and countless appearances in nontraditional forums with the specific intention of remaining anonymous while inciting pranks, tricks, subversive activity.

In other words, Etoll has created, appeared in or significantly contibuted to films, videos, records and has been responsible for hundreds of creative projects not necessarily credited to same. Not only is Etoll's work most known among the non-technical and non-electronic media, his oeuvre has intentionally occupied the realm of the unattributable.

Please also note that Etoll's work has a long history as an artist whose work predates electronic citation. He didn't even know how to use a computer until two years ago. His contributions as a painter, filmmaker, playwright, actor, effects and prop artist, writer and performance artist can be traced to the work of Soul Asylum, Babes in Toyland, The Butthole Surfers, Curtiss A, The Meat Puppets, the Hysteric-Ontologic Theater (see also Richard Foreman), Husker Du, The Replacements, and Run Westy Run, First Avenue, Seventh Street Entry...

A majority of Twin Cities musicians and artists who gained their celebrity during the 80's and 90's can certainly attest to Etoll's "behind the scenes" influence on pop culture.

See TCPunk for extensive and most comprehensive documentation of Twin Cities underground music scene.

"Sewerbaby" -- the movie -- is Etoll's first major mainstream offering and heralds this amazing artist's emergence into popular culture. --Onomatopeon 11:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC) User's first and only edit.[reply]

  • Delete. Bad article GuardDog 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 03:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flush (delete). Etoll may be notable, but the movie project is not. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although movie is not noticed at this time, it is obvious that this man is an important artist, and this film as his new major work is a worthwhile submission.- Tom Paulson 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Vote actually submitted by 65.25.215.205; however, all User:Tom Paulson's edits are in relation to article and this AFD nom, so they are likely the same individual. Additionally, this vote was initially signed as User:blorch, a non-existent user account. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Vanity: cut out the namedropping and self-publicizing and the article is left with nothing. If this movie makes the rounds at international film fests and finds a distributor then an article about it might be appropriate. --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want to see the movie, Has a search been done through another engine besides Google? (Tom Blorch Paulson)- Tom Paulson 00:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please stop deleting votes which do not support your POV. Please also refrain from voting more than once. Marcus22 11:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only edits by User:Mutai and User:24.223.252.12 have been on Poosa, Sewer baby, Mike Etoll, and Image:Lunginsewer.jpg, and the delete discussions for the three articles. The Lunginsewer image has also been marked as a possible copyright violation. - Dalbury 11:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dalbury 11:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sewer Baby is a first class "C" Movie which by its very nature is more interesting to me than any "B" Movie (Jeffrey Amadeus Booty: write in candidate for mayor of mpls)- User:Booty 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previews of Sewer Baby I've seen are one of the funniest things in the world! (Marjon Leger: guitarist for non-band Ploughed)- User:Marjon Leger 16:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sewer Baby should be kept because it seems its being made from a genuine idea with a lot of serious and known actors and music acts involved. User:Poosa 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (This is User:Poosa's first edit. - Dalbury 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment How fascinating Dalbury. User:Mutai22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hannah Kritzeck showcases talents for disabled persons and her appearance in Sewer Baby should be an inspiration for others. User:Marjon Leger 22:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (User:Mutai changed this Keep vote by User:Marjon Leger to a Comment, evidence of sockpuppetry. - Dalbury 08:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Tregoweth.--Dakota ? e 04:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite interesting. Noteworthy. And above all notable. Contains content already referenced on wiki. Contributes to film in ways that many films don't. [User:BigBooger]
    • Comment to BigBooger. If you add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your edit, you won't need to type in a signature block, or have to edit it. - Dalbury 11:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How many of these keeps are by the same user and/or related users? I don't recognize any of these names!? Marcus22 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Mutai and Big Booger are the only ones who started editing before this discussion started, and they only go back a few days. Note also that Mutai changed a keep vote by Marjon Leger to a comment. - Dalbury 17:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentDalbury made the same comment twice. Comments seem biased and subjective. Perhaps he should be suspended from commenting. User:Mutai 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. This edit purports to be from User:Mutai, but the editor was not logged in, and posted from IP address 24.223.252.121. At 22:36, 3 November 2005, an anon user at 24.223.252.12 removed six Delete votes from this discussion. - Dalbury 10:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "purports" nothing, it was me who made the comment. User:Mutai 12:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Thank you for confirming that. If you log in to Wikipedia and sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~), there won't be any confusion as to who made the edit. Have all of the edits from 24.223.252.121 been yours? - Dalbury 19:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to current notability. If and when released and widely distributed, it will get an article, but not yet. --A D Monroe III 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vanity, sock supported. --InShaneee 22:30, 6 November 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 as completely lacking in context. --Carnildo 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shamans (creatures)[edit]

Without any context or references this article is nonsense. Thue | talk 22:07, 2 November 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(?!?) 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shantz[edit]

Neologism, nn dicdef, borderline nonsense --keepsleeping say what 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom FRS 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Foosher 03:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TreeFrogz 11:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete dicdef, neologism, nonsense - see also precotting ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, No, NO! I find the article concerning Shantzing most intersting, and I feel that it reflects how a name or similar can be used in certain enviroments as a verb. Post something about Prescotting— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.117.175 (talk • contribs) 16:23 7 November 2005 (UTC) Page tidying by ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:13, 7 November 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 as spam. - ulayiti (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoebuy[edit]

advertisement

  • Delete per nomination. - Tedernst 22:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the Shoebuy page as a valid entry just like the other entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Massachusetts. Presumably the aim of this page is to list all the significant companies in Massachusetts - of which Shoebuy is one. It is certainly significantly larger than several of the other companies listed on this page.
    • My apologies if you feel the wording or tone of the entries is incorrect - that was not my aim. Please let me know how to change this or please go ahead and make edits.
    • I just changed the Categories that it is in to remove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boston%2C_Massachusetts, since it doesn't look like it should be in here.
    • Thanks Nick 17:25, 4 November 2005
      • Well, the article doesn't assert notability at all. Why is Shoebuy important? Why is it important to Massechusetts or the country or anyone else? Also, the last sentence referring to it's location is fairly useless as no one knows what city you're talking about. Also, street location probably isn't important even if the company is. Tedernst 23:01, 4 November 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 Redirect to Cole slaw. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slaw[edit]

Band is non notable, google search brings up some references to local gigs Jdcooper 12:14, 2 November 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 as per Vegaswikian. These are not useful, no one is going to search for them, and they're full of patent nonsense. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sliding glass door[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7, A1, and maybe G3. Vegaswikian 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Door. But I'd be okay with a keep. :) — RJH 17:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Garr 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 64.194.44.220 15:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Foosher 03:36, 7 November 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 as churchcruft. - ulayiti (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Holland Community Church[edit]

If I am reading this article right then this church has four members. Delete as non-notable. Thue | talk 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the church has four leaders; the article doesn't say how many members it has. Nevertheless, individual churches are generally non-encyclopedic. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 3 November 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 redirect to sprinkler system. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinkler system timer[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7, A1, and maybe G3. Vegaswikian 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sprinkler system. — RJH 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand I have my sprinklers on a timer and would like to see more information about them. Garr 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sprinkler system. Denni☯ 02:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 64.194.44.220 15:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foosher 03:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TreeFrogz 11:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user's only votes are for AfDed articles created by the author of this article. Denni☯ 03:17, 8 November 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(?!?) 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stations of the Cross - Contemporary Icons to Reflect On at Easter[edit]


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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default to keep). - ulayiti (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler nation[edit]

A colloquial term for a group of fans that happen to have a webpage is not reason for a wikipedia entry IMHO. Bachrach44 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Bachrach44 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the term has been around since the early 1970s, and considering most other sports and teams have adopted the "Nation" terminology, one would think the historical significance of Steeler Nation would qualify it for wikipedia. On a side note, "Steeler Nation" was coined by NFL Films.
    • ANON IP: When adding comments to a afd thread (or any thread for that matter), please do not delete prior comments. Rather you should add your comments in a list. (which I have taken the liberty of doing to your comments as an example). --Bachrach44 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously stated, the phrase "Steeler Nation" was coined in the early 70s and is now widely used in regards to other teams. It's pretty common for the media to simply stick a teams' nickname in front of the word "Nation." However, I think it's important that the origins of the phrase are documented.

There are currently entries in wikipedia for Raider Nation and (for God's sake!) the Icy Hot Stuntas. Precident has been set.

  • Comment how in the world do the Icy Hot Stuntaz confer any precedent for inclusion to Steeler nation? I've added a cleanup tag to the article. Right now I see no context that shows this term is in any way significant. I would be inclined to vote keep though if someone cleans up the

article and adds some historical context about the term.--Isotope23 19:51, 2 November 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(?!?) 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kornas[edit]

This article is a complete hoax. The anonymous editor who created it has vandalized several other articles (see: Debt restructuring; The Defeat of the Spanish Armada; Spring Lake Heights, New Jersey etc). There are only two mentions of Stephen Kornas in the web (see [33] and [34]). These indicate that Stephen Kornas lives in Farmingdale, New Jersey and goes to school in Colonia, New Jersey. The former is in the same county as Spring Lake Heights, New Jersey, whose article the editor vandalized. This is obviously just a homophobic deffamation attempt, especially since the article accuses Stephen Kornas of child abuse.--Carabinieri 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete..Non notable. non encyclopedic, character assault, personal agenda article..Dakota 00:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom jnothman talk 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--FRS 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources and references provided for verification. However, I don’t see anything in this article that accuses the subject of child abuse, as the nominator stated. ♠DanMS 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article Kornas lives "with his partners of 7 years, Jared Rosenblum and Nerses Khachatryan".--Carabinieri 09:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That refers to the age of the relationship, not of the partners. Rd232 talk 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • lol I guess I misunderstood the article.--Carabinieri 11:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would even vote speedy delete as an attack page. Ifnord 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page/character assault. Failing that delete for same reasons. Saberwyn 04:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD A6. Rd232 talk 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. An attack page. *drew 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as requested JoJan 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete 64.194.44.220 15:09, 6 November 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(?!?) 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Zero[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable "sycologickle thriller." —Cleared as filed. 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits for a movie by this title. Appears to be a hoax. BrianSmithson 14:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ummmm....did zou actually google it? I mean, it was a flop...but it did star ben kingsley (and i remembered that from the ads before i read that "it had that guy that played gandi." a qucik IMdB gets zou this, where i learned that it ALSO starred aaron eckhart and carrie-anne moss and that tom cruise played a roll in production (though his name was removed before release, that one was buried in the trivia section). All that being said, this article is so poorly written it might be easier to delete it that go through the effort of trying to rewrite it. 'course, i might just be bored enough to go in and fix the article myself. as a result, i wont vote...but i will point out that it"s no hoax.
my bad, forgot to sign above. jfg284 22:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB link you provided is to something called Suspect Zero, but the article for deletion is about Subject Zero. I don't think the latter existed, but if someone can provide evidence, I'll change my vote. —BrianSmithson 02:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Voting Delete Accordingly. i think the author of the article made the same mistake I did, as the line "it has that guy who played gandi" (or something similar) seems to refer to Ben Kingsley and his role in Ghandi.jfg284 06:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. *drew 05:01, 5 November 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunward cohousing[edit]

NN housing community/development. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need some more input on this. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that 650+ Google hits is enough notability for a real-world topic. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [35]. Tagged and bagged. --GraemeL (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 03:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep/merge. Ingoolemo talk 06:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC) . Redirect to party. The next time I see one of these, I'm speedying it as patent nonsense. Oh yeah, sockpuppets need to be quiet now. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 12:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl party[edit]

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and exapnd major annual event for millions of Ameriicans. Youngamerican 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand as per Youngamerican. Garr 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Super Bowl. This is not worth a standalone article (People eat potato chips and drink beer until they fall over? Uh-huh.) Denni☯ 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Super Bowl. — RJH 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per RJH. zellin t / c 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Youngamerican. 64.194.44.220 15:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foosher 03:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided I'm invited. Edwardian 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TreeFrogz 11:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user's only votes are for AfDed articles created by the author of this article. Denni☯ 03:16, 8 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended Animation, INC[edit]

Advertising, nn. Delete. -- DS1953 talk 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Perfect example of vanity page advertising. They even gave us a phone number! --mdd4696 02:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not yet notable, although an interesting business! clear advertising jnothman talk 03:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, advertising. —BrianSmithson 03:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, and doesn't appear to be any different from all the other silly cryogenic preservation companies... -- Captain Disdain 07:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn ad. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad — and signed as proof. Flowerparty■ 13:06, 2 November 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=redirect to Terrill Middle School Ingoolemo talk 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terril Middle School[edit]

DELETE PLEASE! Are we going to have stubs for every middle school in the world? WikiDon 06:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete nn middle school --JAranda | watz sup 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Kappa --JAranda | watz sup 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Terrill Middle School. Kappa 07:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently so, but I don't have to like it. Gazpacho 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but you could help to put an end to wasted time and bitterness by resistimg the temptation to vote delete as a forlorn gesture. CalJW 15:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      When nobody was voting delete on non-notable schools, they were used to justify articles about ridiculously trivial subjects, much as Pokemon is used to justify schools. Gazpacho 17:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Terrill Middle School --rob 11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I put a nonfunctioning redirect in place, so nobody accidently ads to the article. I'll leave it to an admin to make it a funcitoning redirect when the AFD notice is removed, and this AFD is closed. --rob 11:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Kappa. Thanks for the heads-up. Jacqui ★ 15:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per forlorn gesture of bitterness.--Isotope23 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I'm not a member of the deeply-embittered "must delete all grade school articles" crowd ;-), but this redirect seems pointless. — RJH 16:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJH. Does not seem a common spelling mistake. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no redirect, you can spell a word wrong an infinite number of ways. There's no space for infinite redirects -Andrew 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is unnecessary but better than keeping. (I'm not a school deletionist, but this is an exception.) Also, encourage one of the teachers to set a class project to improve Terrill Middle School. AndyJones 17:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o redirect. This is the incorrect spelling of that school anyway. We don't redirect people's lack of spelling ability.Gateman1997 19:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we do. Kappa 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then maybe we should revisit that policy rather then pandering to the lowest common denominator.Gateman1997 19:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gateman, with all due respect, this is not something that Wikipedia alone does. It's a common practice in many libraries, for example, to include common misspellings in search software. Knowledge is for everyone... not just those who spell every word in the universe correctly. Jacqui ★ 20:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • True but in this case we're referring to a proper noun, for instance we wouldn't redirect Abraham Lincol to Abraham Lincoln.Gateman1997 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no rule against redirecting proper nouns, and there can be few which would be more likely to be misspelled than this one. CalJW 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a possibloe way to accidentally spell the name of that school and that is one of the reasons that we have these kind of redirects Yuckfoo 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect per RJH. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Terrill Middle School as per Kappa. FWIW, we also have redirects from Malcom X and Abraham Lincon. Thanks for selecting such excellent examples. Silensor 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter one, it should be noted, exists only because you created it just a few hours earlier. --Aquillion 07:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OH SNAP! I love it when people use new "evidence" they created because their argument is weak.Gateman1997 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel that my argument is weak, or more specifically, if you feel that the redirect should not exist, please go to WP:RFD immediately and request that it be deleted. Take note that the Malcom X redirect has existed since May 2002. One of the main reasons redirects exist is to help facilitate the finding of information and redirect the reader to the correct location. If you are at all lost by this, believe me I understand. Silensor 19:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article, under whatever name, fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted. -- DS1953 talk 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There are, as Silensor points out, redirects for Abraham Lincon.--Nicodemus75 01:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only because Silensor created it yesterday after my example...Gateman1997 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrill Middle School. "The students in grades 6-8 have seven periods a day." Can you BELIEVE it?? Denni☯ 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted. Rumor has it that redirects are cheap, have you heard? —RaD Man (talk) 05:17, 3 November 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=keep. Ingoolemo talk 06:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving dinner[edit]

Someone deleted this without an explanation. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? I vote keep. CarDepot 22:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: if it will help to build consensus, I would also be okay with a redirect to Thanksgiving. I still think that more could be written here, though, than is at that article right now. Jacqui ★ 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was never deleted, and should never have been brought here. Editing disputes, such as whether material like this belongs in a separate article or part of a larger one, should be discussed on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Garr 03:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would suggest a merge and redirect to Thanksgiving, but that article already has a section on Thanksgiving dinner which is far superior to this description, and there is nothing worth merging. Denni☯ 05:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thanksgiving, unless this article is expanded to be better and more complete than the dinner section of that article. u p p l a n d 06:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thanksgiving#Thanksgiving dinner. Vegaswikian 07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thanksgiving. — RJH 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This dinner is also served on Christmas and sometimes Easter, so should have a separate article. GuardDog 01:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Garr. 64.194.44.220 15:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foosher 03:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable thing for Americans and Canadians TreeFrogz 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thanksgiving. Edwardian 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foogol 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Thanksgiving, noting that a bare "redirect" leaves the article in history and thus can be counted as a keep. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:42, 7 November 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.  Denelson83  06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Darn Essay[edit]

Pretty Very sure that this is a hoax: no mention on Google and it all sounds very, very unlikely...-- JoanneB 09:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. --rob 10:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Thelb4 10:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear hoax jnothman talk 11:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smecks of hoaxishness. Flowerparty■ 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. BrianSmithson 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written hoax. Bevo74 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete accord to WP:V. No Google evidence and it fails the smell test. The world will just have to wait for FW De Klerk's theatrical debut. Capitalistroadster 16:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoaxers seem to have run out of ideas these days.Moriori 01:58, 7 November 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 deleted as hoax. DS 13:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ali Empire[edit]

Obvious hoax. In fact, I think this AfD is a complete waste of time, but I am posting this at RHaworth's insistence. There is absolutely no reason not to speedy delete this and all associated pages created by the same user and IP. --Nlu 06:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unverifiable and surely a hoax. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. 374 Google results see [36] with no references to this claimed business empire on the first page. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A major hint as to the reason is contained in the same user's vandalism of October 28; this gave the hint that the user is 19 years old. It was probably created as a class project. --Nlu 07:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if not a hoax, then this self-promotion. JoJan 09:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete claims 7 billion pounds and not a hoax? jnothman talk 11:28, 2 November 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.

Please see the second AFD for the new (December 2006) discussion

Vanity - The article, now about a fake game, was simply created to generate attention for an obscure person, who in turn tried to re-sell the "fake" game in a private auction on his forum using this article as hype for the product. Nothing but a ruse to get traffic and money from a hoax. TSA 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the second AFD for the new (June 2006) discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (No consensus). --Titoxd(?!?) 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Triforce_Saga[edit]

No content, blatent advertisement/spam GeminiDomino 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete jnothman talk 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This game has actually found some legs due to an alleged find of a prototype cart at a flea market. While the article name needs to be fixed to conform to whatever standard the Zelda people have set up, and the article needs to be cleaned up further, I have fixed the article somewhat to meet the standards of why it should be included in WP via removing the blatant ads and spam and replacing it with actual information. I'll withhold a vote until more info can come about regarding whether this article can be improved further. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff 14:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of Badlydrawnjeff's edits. Even if this stays here the rest of its time without anyone adding anything else to it, there's still more information here than some other articles, and I thank Jeff for his work. However, it would be bad if it became a space for rampant speculation of the unsourced kind, which it might eventually because of the subject matter. So if kept, we should keep an eye on it. Jacqui ★ 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article; this is essentially unverifiable and of no real note even if it was. Nice rewrite, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What part of the Moody link makes you vote delete? Not only is that link already in the article, but it tends to increase, rather than decrease, verifibility of the existence of the game, even if the recent eBay cart is a hoax. --badlydrawnjeff 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a hoax or a fake, and even if it was, merging wouldn't change that. And notice that there are several articles on cancelled games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading [37] and some other things I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the eBay cart. Ian Moody 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This information is valuable, and should not be deleted. The question is where it should be merged to if at all - do we merge it to the series article, to LttP's or LA's? Or, perhaps, to all three? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This one is treading the line on WP:V, but at the very least it's a noteworthy hoax. If it turns out to be fake, no big deal; it can be smerged into a one-liner in the LoZ series article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the existence of the in-development game a hoax? I know that this whole eBay cart thing from last week has become a bit of an internet phenomenon regardless of its actual existence, but I didn't think there was that much question regarding the verifibility. Regardless, assuming it ends up being kept, maybe a move to Zelda III might be in order? --badlydrawnjeff 19:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm given to understand that the existence of the in-development game isn't verified. My hunch is that it's not a hoax, but that's just a hunch.
        In any case, no, that's not a good idea. Zelda III should point to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and if Triforce Saga is verified, a dab notice should be placed at the top of the LTTP article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:14, 3 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Myths Of Redwall[edit]

"The Myths of Redwall is a Roleplaying website under-construction." Aserts minimal notability as a Redwall RPG. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not a directory, especially of web sites that are under construction. --DavidConrad 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn jnothman talk 02:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 07:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "...the core have even tried unique ideas like mixing Redwall and Star Wars..." Uh... yeah. -- Captain Disdain 07:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 11:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "...mixing Redwall and Star Wars..." Oh, what a fantastic idea! I wonder if they'd be interested in my Redwall/Gundam/Muppets/Law&Order crossover module? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... hey Andrew Lenahan - Starblind, could that module be adapted to my GURPS Mighty Morphin Power Rangers campaign?--Isotope23 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RPG sites are not notable. -- Necrothesp 02:10, 3 November 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadwells[edit]

Probably a hoax. "The original singer Bart Day, was sadly killed in a wasp storm in Argentina" ??? There is a band in Surrey called the Shadwells, but their description doesn't sound anything like what's in the article. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need more votes on this. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band are famous throughout Surrey and North-East Hampshire for their regular appearances at Lance Batt's halloween parties and the Cadwell's New Year's Eve extravaganza." Hmmm.... delete. TheMadBaron 13:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheMadBaron and the fact that their web site mentions no releases beyond an 8 track demo cd. --GraemeL (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Tedernst 22:47, 2 November 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 both. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Spunkers and Cherry Strattico[edit]

No mention of this band or the lead singer on allmusic.com. If this is voted for deletion, also remove Cherry Strattico from 1985 births section, List of musicians in the second wave of punk music, List of female singers and List of musicians of anarcho-punk. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free London Musical Press. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google's never heard of the lead singer, and searching "spunkers" (even with an included "punk" to narrow the search) turns up almost nothing but porn sites and references to some band called "the Spunk"— not this group. BrianSmithson 21:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:53, 3 November 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 Ingoolemo talk 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Zywicki[edit]

Vanity page Nv8200p (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "more than 30 articles" doesn't translate to notability when the topics and citations aren't given. Icky and vain. Anville 22:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to expansion (see brief discussion below). Delete notable only on campus, where he already has a web page of his very own. --Kgf0 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC) --Kgf0 23:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is also a Trustee at Dartmouth College [38] and has testified before Congress as the Director of the Office of Policy Planning of the Federal Trade Commission. He is notable enough. -- DS1953 talk 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that's the same guy, or a different guy with the same name? If it's the same guy, I might be persuaded to change my vote, assuming the additional notability is duly noted in the article. --134.79.192.91 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry, session issues. --Kgf0 17:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its the same guy. -- DS1953 talk 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While not mentioned in this article, Zywicki is also a contributing writer to the blog The Volokh Conspiracy. --Metropolitan90 08:21, 3 November 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(?!?) 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VasoVerga[edit]

Band vanity with 8 unique Google hits. Pilatus 16:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete trounced by WP:MUSIC, article content is a wikified copy of the band's myspace.com entry. --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

myspace.com entry removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfPlum (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nomination. NN. Advert. Band's website is still under construction. No albums released. mdd4696 21:10, 2 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Manga[edit]

Non notable online manga/webcomic, found here. The page was nominated for deletion just over a year ago, resulting in a no consensus. Since then, it still hasn't established a wide fan base, nor has any other assertion of notability been established. A look on Google shows mostly links to a french language Manga magazine to which this article does not refer. And searching for the english language results mainly brings up wikipedia mirrors. - Hahnchen 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Alexa rating '653,358'. Saberwyn 00:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I will point out that the manga in question usually refers to itself simply as "Virus" (ex. "Virus issue 3"); on the slight chance this is kept I'd move it to Virus (manga) or (webcomic) or (something). Nifboy 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly they're serious about what they do, but the strip just isn't notable. Really, I'm a little surprised this one didn't get deleted the last time around. -- Captain Disdain 07:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or maybe transwiki to comics. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, every one else. Dragonfiend 02:37, 3 November 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 Ingoolemo talk 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Von Neumann Cellular Automata[edit]

Doesn't really say anything beyond the title. Basically an "I'll put something here soon" message that hasn't been touched since July. — Gwalla | Talk 05:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- this is a stub for a legitimate subfield of Computer Science. I will add the "stub" template. BeteNoir 06:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is already touched upon at Cellular automaton, but I think it could be expanded into a valid article of its own. (Unfortunately, that's where my expertise pretty much ends; I know it's significant, but, uh, wouldn't know how to actually write a decent article about it...) -- Captain Disdain 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stubs should be expanded, not deleted. Perodicticus 11:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wiki stubs are an eventualist's dream. Jacqui ★ 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --R.Koot 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this different from a Von Neumann machine? If not, a redirect would be appropriate. If so... in what way? All I know about this is what I've read in SF books (FIJAGH). - 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cellular automaton. Denni☯ 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Denni. I haven't seen much evidence that topics with zero-content stubs get written up any faster than topics that simply have no article. If someone wants to write an article on the topic, it's not any harder to do it starting with the redirect than starting from the stub. --Trovatore 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as per Denni & Trovatore. Pete.Hurd 21:40, 5 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlizard dot com[edit]

A webpage with zero Alexa stats, found here. It's forums are desolate with hardly any activity. This just looks like a random guy's personal art site. - Hahnchen 00:09, 2 November 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 errr... no consensus default to keep (20 deletes, 16 keeps, 2 merges - yeah, I actually counted them). - ulayiti (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman Middle School (Seattle, Washington)[edit]

  • Delete-I'm sure few outside of Whitman (or even a few in Whitman too for that matter) really care. Irrelevant Sundevil4life 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zzzzzzzzzzzZAH. Gazpacho 02:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I'd say speedy, but it immature material is specifically mentioned as not being worthy for speedy deletions :(. --mdd4696 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone shapes it up quite a bit. I like school articles in general, but this really isn't an article, more like a note. Jacqui ★ 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it wasn't only a note: it was a request for gossip from fellow pupils of the school, but I cleaned it up since the version when proposed for deletion. jnothmantalk 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Jacqui ★ 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps possibly a valid speedy per ((nonsense)) and ((db-empty)). Preferably before the bloc voting commences. Chris talk back 03:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school now that nonsense is gone. --rob 03:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of this change to a single line which contains nothing which isn't in the page title, my delete still stands, unless somehow this school stands out from other middle schools in Washington state. Chris talk back 04:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. CalJW 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless someone can show that "does not stand out" is a valid Wikipedia deletion criterion. --Gene_poole 05:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOT:
    • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links...
    • Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider
    • Wikipedia articles are not: ... directory entries
    From WP:DP:
    • Vanity articles
    • Completely idio-syncratic non-topic
    • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
    QED. Also, a few choice words:
    • Only the guilty have need to rely on technicalities.
    • What is written down on Wikipedia is not the actual policy. It is a codification of the theory of it.
    Chris talk back 05:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's great that you know how to use your PC's cut and paste function. Now, can you try actually answering my question? --Gene_poole 00:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I forgot that people of your intelligence level need everything spelled out for them. Most of these stubs are nothing more than a soapbox or a directory entry with a link, typically originated by people at the institution in question, a "non-topic" in that they are of absolutely no interest to anyone outside their immediate community, and the "such a minor branch" speaks for itself — thus because one school "does not stand out", it happily fulfils several deletion criteria. Did I also mention that they also fail the key pillar of verifiability? Chris talk back 19:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is specifcally a problem that doesn't require deletion. Kappa 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • What does it require, then? If you acknowledge that it's a problem, then presumably you also acknowledge that keeping the article is not the solution, much less expanding it. — Haeleth Talk 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Lukobe 06:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn middle school --JAranda | watz sup 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Kappa 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Gateman1997 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment User:Doc glasgow performed an early close on this, reverted by User:Gateman1997. His comment was:
    The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (if anyone thinks that there will be a different conclusion - or a meaninggul discussion - then by all means open this again - but I will slso assume that you are also accepting accept my £50 wager that you are wrong). -Doc (?) 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this user might have a point, what with there being an element of the community determined to break the AfD process even worse than it already is by de facto exempting certain articles from the process which have no actual grounds for exemption. Chris talk back 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please stop there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, it is worthy when there is more detail added. — Wackymacs 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the relevant school district article. Come on, people - I can just about stretch my mind around the argument that individual high schools deserve articles, but the slope gets a bit slippery around the middle school range. How long before we're arguing over Third desk from the left in the second row from the back of Room 302, Bogstandard Junior School, Hamlet, Somerset? Time to draw a line before it's too late... — Haeleth Talk 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , no known notable alumni. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to expand as per Wikipedia:schools/Arguments#Keep. Rather than clog up an already convoluted AFD system, let's try to refocus our efforts on actually improving these articles. Silensor 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will not happen. I recently conducted some research into the progress of articles on schools in Texas and California. I looked at twelve articles more than an year old. Of those twelve, only two had undergone significant improvement in a year. Five had undergone modest improvement, and five had undergone no improvement at all. You might as well be shouting into the wind. Denni☯ 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Unless a president, king, or Darth Vader went to school here. Who cares!!209.150.74.27 01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • bloc Keep this emminently notable school.--Nicodemus75 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Emminently notable"??? Surely you jest! Denni☯ 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article utterly devoid of content. Denni☯ 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Utterly devoid"??? Surely you jest! Nicodemus75 10:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article says nothing of the school's history. It says nothing of community involvement, notable staff or students, or alumni. It doesn't even provide the demographic excuse-for-data that other school articles do. If I were a parent looking for a school for my child, or I were a former student looking for additional information about my school (and, frankly, who else is going to be reading this article?) I would be woefully disappointed. Yep, utterly devoid pretty much sums it up. Denni☯ 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you, whoever you are, for re-opening this debate for continued "discussion". —RaD Man (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. It should not have been prematurely closed anyway.Gateman1997 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's your old friend that likes to create articles about his preschool, his grocery store and schools which do not exist.--Nicodemus75 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random middle schools are not considered encyclopedic under any standard I am familar with. --Aquillion 06:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 06:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Also, listing every school just because it can be verified that it exists is equal to listing every branch fire station and every post office branch that exists--Just because something exists doesn't automatically merit it an article. Niteowlneils 07:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, fire departments and post offices are already on the "keep" agenda for our inclusionist friends, as are libraries and hospitals. Verifiability is all that seems to be necessary, and notability is dismissed as a necessary criterion. It's totally goofy, and I expect it to get worse. Denni☯ 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn middle school. BlankVerse 08:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school. —Wayward Talk 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or failing that Merge with Seattle Public Schools. Why are we still considering deleting perfectly good articles when, for the reasons given, a deletion is not required and there are clear instructions on the deletion policy page to perform a merge in such cases? It's so wasteful and (qv) divisive to nominate articles for deletion unnecessarily. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with the above, but for slightly different reasons. 'Policy' isn't a reason to keep, as policy is in the end what the community consensus decides it will be. But consensus has consistantly shown that schools will not be deleted. Whatever individuals may prefer (and, if really pushed, I'd probably vote delete) this is the position. We have a defacto policy - accept it. Game over. --Doc (?) 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear to be nitpicking, but I'd point out that consensus does not decide policy. Many decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus, and some policies can be changed by consensus, but some are not. No personal attacks, for instance, which does not enjoy consensus support, is nevertheless official policy and we cannot ignore it with impunity. NPOV has been explicitly described by Jimbo Wales as "non-negotiable". Moreover, where a dozen or so editors decide to do something, this doesn't constitute a consensus. There is at most a grudging acceptance of deletion nominations that do not give adequate policy backing. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that a significent number of schools, including the vast majority below high school level, come up no consensus, not keep; the lower ones often with a simple majority for deletion. Although Schoolwatch, for some reason, makes no distinction between these, the difference is significent--repeating the same vote a thousand times on a thousand different articles still can't turn a no-consensus result into a consensus. Certainly, while there are some policies that cannot be challenged even by consensus, there is no policy that should be decided by a minority. --Aquillion 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely well put, and precisely the reason why the endlessly repeated cant of why schools should be kept per precedent (as itself consensus defining) is so off the mark. Dottore So 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, but irrelevant. There is no consensus to delete schools - so the schools will stay - and 10,000 more will come. You can keep testing that fact, or lammenting that fact, but there it is. Eventually it will be accepted. I may not like it, you may not like it, but there it stands. Of course, people have a perfect right to bang their head off walls, and perhaps I've been wrong to try to dissuade them, but sooner or later they have to realise that the head hurts and the wall doesn't really care. This game is over. --Doc (?) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that there is no consensus to keep schools is superficially true, but objectively false. There is a consensus that, excepting speedy deletions which are normally decided by one or at most two persons, we will keep all articles unless there's a consensus to delete them. Thus school articles that have been kept have been kept by consensus. We don't use AfD to decide whether there's a consensus to keep a particular article; such a consensus may form but it's of no significance. The article is still kept if the debate forms no consensus at all. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is flawed in that it assumes that the same proportion of support is required for keeping or deleting a page.
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 14:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly good school stub, so no reason to buck precedent on the notability issue. -Colin Kimbrell 15:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... and exactly what precedent would that be? Chris talk back 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent that not a single, verifiable, non-preschool school has been deleted via the AfD process since April (over 300 nominations).--Nicodemus75 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an AfD precedent. It just happens to be the case that since April 2005, there has been a concentrated effort to disrupt AfD, and put a category of articles beyond deletion. Moreover, it can't be a real precedent. If it were, it would be reversed pretty quickly, as any measure which effectively exempts a group of articles from the deletion process without any real reason to do so would make for a dangerous precedent. Articles such as Pope Benedict XVI are not exempt from deletion. Anyone may nominate it if they feel so inclined, they just might find the article kept with overwhelming, real consensus, as opposed to the junkies who think that the current state of affairs is anything like a consensus. I say junkies, because anyone who seriously believes that 51% is a mandate needs to tell me what they're taking so we can all get some. Chris talk back 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Family Altar Christian School and several others would disagree with that statement. The fact is there is no preceedent that has been concretely set. And preceedent is not consensus which is what we need to ultimately achieve. I think revisiting WP:SCH to make some progress like WP:MUSIC did would be the most constructive thing to do. Becuase the fact is many school articles are being kept by the skin of their teeth (ie: they have majority delete but get a no consensus vote).Gateman1997 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Family Altar Christian School was unverifiable. Why respond with a non-sequiter?--Nicodemus75 01:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am of the opinion it quite frankly doesn't matter to most of those voting "keep" on these articles what the subject or the contents are. The equation is quite simple. School=keep. Such an equation is utterly immune to reason, and no modification to WP:SCH will change it. Until those who take such a tack can appreciate that school articles must meet the same criteria of notability and excellence as ALL OTHER ARTICLES do, any attempt to achieve a consensus is doomed. Denni☯ 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no general criterion of either notability or excellence in our deletion policy. The idea that there are such general criteria is a fiction. Articles on schools are no different from other articles, and as a matter of practice the debates involving those articles are closed in precisely the same manner, by the same set of closers, as other AfD debates. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • While there may be no formal recognition of notability asan inclusion criterion, there certainly is a fe facto one. Your experience at AfD must surely have shown you that. Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion policy uses the word unabashedly in its descriptions of what is eligible for AfD and what is not. There will also soon be a poll opened to measure support for notability to be introduced as a formal criterion. I agree with you that school AfDs are closed in the same manner as all other articles and I don't have an issue with that. The big bone in my craw is how school articles are treated by those who vote. Articles appearing before AfD are, I have to assume (I may be wrong), read by people before votes are cast. In the case of school articles, however, it seems to me that a number of supporters simply vote "keep" because it's a school, and no matter how pathetic the article is, they are unwilling to cast a delete vote, or even refrain from voting. All I am asking is that if we must accept school articles (And I have come to that acceptance), let us at least assure that they are good articles. Denni☯ 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete middle schools (and other items with a default presumption of non-notability) unless (A) they play a key role in the history or development of middle schooling (or pedagogy in general) or (B) they are otherwise the subject of sustained interest on the regional, national or international level, or reasonably expected to be so. flowersofnight (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete if you also delete University of Michigan which is not a notable educational institute in my view given its a Michigan State University rival. --Cool Cat Talk 01:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, I'll let you guess why Broken S 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all school are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is logically flawed. Chris talk back 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for my reasons, see User:Xoloz/Schools. Xoloz 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic Keep How are we ever going to destroy Wikipedia unless we fill it full of useless junk that's only of interest to a microscopic fragment of the populace? DELETE --DavidConrad 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools --64.12.117.6 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (Readded this users vote, even tho he removed someone elses vote in the process.  ALKIVAR™ 21:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete the essence of non-notability? Pete.Hurd 21:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unremarkable middle school. Grackle 11:31, 6 November 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 under CSD A1 Karmafist 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wife Breeding[edit]

Barely understandable dicdef, with poorly written, meandering content. Fails to assert notability or credibility. PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, db nonsense and attack. PJM 22:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, offensive non-notable, non-referenced nonsense Tedernst 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under WP:CSD A1. Short article as the page is now blank. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy nonsense (now blanked). -- DS1953 talk 00:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. -- Kjkolb 01:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Offensive rubbish. ♠DanMS 02:29, 3 November 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. - ulayiti (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:major league baseball[edit]

Poorly formatted and just a redundant and less updated copy of whats on 2005 in baseball. Jobe6 02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also in a non existant "wikiproject" space. So thats why its not at Miscellany for deletion. Jobe6 02:34, 2 November 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(?!?) 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Zionism[edit]

The only notable material that could possibly be covered in this article is already covered in the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The conference was un-noteworthy aside from Ahmadinejad's comments. Since those comments are already covered and since it's unlikely that anyone would ever reach this page without seeing the link on the Ahmadinejad's entry, I think this page probably ought to be deleted. I appreciate the effort put into it by all the contributors, but I simply can not see anything ever coming of this stub (beyond what is covered in the other article). So basically I think it should be deleted for non-notability and for being redundant.Jakob Huneycutt 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator that it is non-notable. --Bachrach44 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this becomes a catchphrase it can always be recreated JFW | T@lk 14:57, 2 November 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.

More