< September 18	September 20 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 relevant information in United Airlines Flight 93 (already there) and delete (biography is already on Wikimemorial). Neutrality^talk 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bradshaw[edit]

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete --Aranda56 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• She and several other passengers are historically significant for fighting back against the terroists. This has been confirmed by reconstructions of the flight tapes and from cell phone conversations. I agree posting all 40 passengers would be OTT. Posting these few who fought back is relevant and material to the events on Flight 93. Note that the terrorists are given extensive bios--why not mini bios for the few who foiled their plans? Norweigan Forest 00:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC) _{- User's 18th edit. --Blackcap | talk 19:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
  • What exactly is your vote? Keep? --Blackcap | talk 19:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Its better off for a merge into the wiki 9/11 memorial Page not here --Aranda56 00:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any pertinent info to the 9/11 wiki. -GregAsche (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: Norwegian Forest: At this point, the article only says it is believed that this person was notable by the standards you cite (which I would generally agree with). If the significant in foiling terrorists claim is sourced, I'd say keep. Until, delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no particular evidence that this individual in particular fought back against the terrorists and in any case, Todd Beamer and United Airlines Flight 93 detail the passenger counterattack in enough detail. This article is completely unnecessary. — Phil Welch 02:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete: I think a list, which might include a mini biography, of all the passenger on UA Flight 93 would be useful — or maybe as a section in the United Airlines Flight 93 article. As is, though, IMHO it doesn't warrant its own article. — Cory Maylett 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge articles on such people in the article on the flight they were on. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with an article about flight 93, maybe include all the pertanant people involved in that flight...HoratioVitero 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The September 11th wiki already has all of this information and more here. There is nothing paticularly notable about this person, and her pages can be easily linked to on the previously mentioned wiki from the UA Flight 93 page. I recommend that references to her in the UA 93 page be simply linked to her Sep11 wiki page. --Blackcap | talk 19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Relevant material: meta:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties. --Blackcap | talk 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into United Airlines Flight 93. (Article should be re-created if section gets too big). Andrew pmk | Talk 20:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many other articles on 9/11 victims onboard aircraft have been expanded — this one could be too. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to United Airlines Flight 93. Hall Monitor 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into United Airlines Flight 93.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Neutrality^talk 15:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear the Diesel Engine[edit]

The page appears to be original research/a personal essay --Mysidia (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - one of the characters from The Railway Series about Thomas the Tank Engine. Other characters have articles.--AYArktos 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (Note that I tidied the article after Mysidia's nomination from anon editor's start - I appreciate that without links, categorisation or context it looked like a personal essay.)--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major characters in popular fiction are notable by current standards. Ashibaka (tock) 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup (I'll make a start). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Engines in the Railway Series are notable, even though Bear seems to be a fairly minor character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems perfectly valid to me. Can't see how it's original research. Merge and redirect Bear, AKA D7101 here, assuming this is the common name for the thing. AKAs don't belong in titles. (Note: We have a Thomas the Thank Engine vandal, so please be extra careful with the info you move). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll merge it in now. Should be okay, since if "Bear the Diesel Engine" gets deleted "AKA D7101" should too. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: part of a vauable resource; a single article to cover all those characters would be enormous. —Phil | Talk 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepHoratioVitero 15:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOT paper, and per Ashibaka. --Blackcap | talk 19:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per everyone who has voted keep before me. Thryduulf 20:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per AYArktos. I loved Thomas the Tank Engine when I was little. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trap17[edit]

Ad for a free webhost. --fvw* 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's nothing but an advertisement — Cory Maylett 02:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Webhosts are a dollar a dozen. — Phil Welch 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cory Maylett --Icarus 05:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Friedo 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nice idea, but still an ad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa is 45,465, which seems low for a web host. Flowerparty■ 11:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This entry has been Transwikied to Yellowikis by User:Uncle_G's bot --Payo 12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Yellowikis, and how can we "transwiki" to a site that is not a sister project? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what a Google search turned up: [1]. They use the same skin as us, anyway, but I've never heard of them. A Meta search for Yellowiki turns up zilch, so I doubt they're a sister project. --Blackcap | talk 00:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Yellowikis (AfD discussion). In the very same way that we transwiki to that subset of the sibling projects to which transwikification is permitted. The procedure is identical. Uncle G 01:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly protest the use of the term transwiki to describe moving GFDL articles to non-Wikipieda projects. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you are on your own, and in disagreement with many other editors, since excluding all projects except for Wikipedia ones is not its generally accepted meaning. Excluding all projects except for Wikimedia ones is not its generally accepted meaning, even. I suggest that you read the first sentence of m:transwiki to see how broadly encompassing the concept is, in Angela's own words. I also suggest that if you are going to propose changing the terminology to your newly-coined highly restricted meaning, you do so not here but on the talk page at Meta. Uncle G 01:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're biting a bit hard, mate. A simple, "That's not the generally accepted definition of tranwiki, see m:transwiki," would probably have sufficed. Just a friendly thought. --Blackcap | talk 04:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. If I want an article deleted from Wikipedia, all I have to do is "transwiki" it to some obscure GFDL wiki and delete it, huh? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, you will find yourself in disagreement with many other editors in that understanding. Please read the existing extensive discussions of this, beginning with the very talk page that I mentioned above and proceeding to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archives, and Template talk:Move to Wiktionary. Uncle G 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 19:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't get it... how does this differ from Geocities and Freewebs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooga (talk • contribs) 2005-09-20 03:37:48 UTC
  • GeoCities is listed on NASDAQ and its purchase and subsequent alteration by Yahoo! was covered by news media. Freewebs has been the subject of independent news stories, too. This is not the case for Trap17. Uncle G 10:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Josh Parris # 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cradossk[edit]

Direct quote from my brother the Star Wars fanatic: "I wouldn't even put that guy in a Star Wars character guide, let alone an encyclopedia." Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Bossk. I don't think the resulting redirect will cause any harm. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Info is already in there; redirect to Minor bounty hunters in Star Wars#Bossk. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't redirect to sections though, but apart from that I agree. --fvw* 00:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean that in the sense of "it's not technically possible", or in the sense of "it's not allowed"? I'm pretty sure it's technically possible. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not technically possible. Here, I'll set up an example for you. Go to User:Purplefeltangel/Sandbox2, then click on the link at the top back to the redirect page. Then click "edit." You can see it's supposed to link to a section, but it doesn't. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand corrected. But darn it, it should be possible. They need to fix that. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I think that this used to work a few months ago. Maybe it's a regression in the software? Pburka 03:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not particularly opposed to a redirect. — Phil Welch 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd rather like to say "delete" as another example of rampant Star Wars cruft, but precedent is against me. Redirect, merging if necessary. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Minor_bounty_hunters_in_Star_Wars#Bossk and then Redirect --Icarus 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the list of minor bounty hunters. Since sections can be renamed without being explicitly logged, redirects to sections are prone to breaking. That's why it's not working. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into Minor bounty hunters in Star Wars#Bossk.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Code of conflict[edit]

Non-notable mud. --fvw* 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I thought? Shouldn't this be extended to be as true as possible. If you go to the website, it seems obvious the current article is truthful.. so then why not keep it? It's true - and if people want to know what Code of Conflict is they can find out - or otherwise other Code of Conflict definitions can be added as I see on MANY other pages ;) _{- Unsigned post by 203.109.252.196, an ISP which has vandalised numerous pages. --Blackcap | talk 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Is that a threat? --Blackcap | talk 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn unverified. — Phil Welch 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Code of conflict.com has an Alexa rank of 1,787,348. Neopets reaches 73. Comparing the two (which is their only claim to fame) would be ludicrous. It's just one of the billions of random games put on the net. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MgM. --Blackcap | talk 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 21:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pasadena Anarchist Collective[edit]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 00:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advert nn. — Phil Welch 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Promotional page (even written in first person style). If kept, should be rewritten. — Cory Maylett 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what Maylett said. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. -- Friedo 07:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phil and Maylett. --Blackcap | talk 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN ≈ jossi ≈ 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancer patients[edit]

This list is accurate but cancer is the most common death and that list names all the cancer patients which is way to many and that list is even probaly a stub.See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous pneumonia suffers Delete --Aranda56 01:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not a fan of these kinds of infinite list articles to begin with, but if the article is kept, it ought to at least be limited and changed to, maybe, "Famous" or "Notable cancer patients". Even then, the list could possibly grow into the tens or hundreds of thousands. — Cory Maylett 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or make into category. The main advantages of lists over categories are (a) redlinks can be added (but in this case, only bluelinks should be allowed to maintain verifiability) and (b) lists can be annotated, but I can't see much use for annotation here. So this would be an OK category but not much of a list. — Phil Welch 02:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Phil makes a compelling argument. I think the list should be categorified, deleted afterwards. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a category and then delete --Icarus 05:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, unmaintainable list. I don't think that Category:People who died of cancer would be a good idea, either. DES ^(talk) 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a category. I like lists, but this particular one can grow beyond large. Shouldn't we merge the edit history to show who added people to the list/category? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can do that -- a category has no history connected with the individual items in the category, that history is entirely in the individual items. DES ^(talk) 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cory Maylett and Aranda56. Don't make a category. What good is a category listing half the people on Wikipedia? -- Kjkolb 10:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely indiscriminate collection of information that serves no purpose. Categories could help. Please note that many of these people did not die of cancer (it's possible to have cancer for decades and die from a motor crash or heart attack). JFW | T@lk 11:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, IMO Category:People diagnosed with cancer is of even less use, if that is possible, than Category:People who died of cancer. DES ^(talk) 11:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable. Could potentially have millions of names on it. Even a list of famous people with cancer would be unmaintainable since there are so many. 23skidoo 16:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into "cancer patient" category and then delete per Phil. Completely unmaintainable as a list. --Blackcap | talk 19:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (what is with this listmania) . ≈ jossi ≈ 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete big lists. Do not make into a category. That would be even worse. I'd rather see this page stick around than such a category tag applied to hundreds and hundreds of articles. What other categories can we think of? "Men with male pattern baldness?" "Cities with beaches?" Bunchofgrapes 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Davies[edit]

• Delete: Vanity page, advertising, not notable. Drew Davies is apparently the founder/design director of a small graphic design firm in Nebraska called Oxide Design Co. which also has a Wikipedia article. Both articles were created by a user named Oxide, whose contributions are limited to the Oxide Design and Drew Davies articles. I suspect a case of self-promotion. A little more research turned up an employee of the company, Joe Sparano, whose vanity page has already been deleted. Cory Maylett 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. — Phil Welch 02:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cory Maylett Dlyons493 07:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity -- Friedo 07:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. (And why hasn't Oxide Design Co. been nominated? --Calton | Talk 13:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn; article may have been created to drive traffic to linked site CLW 18:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

29A[edit]

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not well verified. — Phil Welch 02:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, meaningless list of pseudonyms — Cory Maylett 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If 29A have written many computer viruses, then they are notable, even if for a wrong reason, and people need to be informed about them. Computer viruses are a major pest. Anthony Appleyard 06:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree, meaningless list of pseudonyms, fails to properly define the subject at hand. Pandemic 07:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Pandemic's 6th edit. --Blackcap | talk 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete per Maylett. --Blackcap | talk 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 15:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Stethoscope[edit]

• Delete Does this belong in the UoT article? No. Does it belong in a new article, "Student organizations of University of Toronto"?Ashibaka (tock) 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given that the usual bar for a student group at a university is "5 to 10 people want to make a group", with the occasional condition of "the group is not a porn studio", the notability bar for such groups is a good bit higher than we have a board of directors. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete We have over 750 undergraduate and graduate members at the University of Toronto St George Campus (the largest life sci student organization in Canada's largest university) , the article sure does need cleaning up but we dont understand why we cant have a wikipedia entry while obscure geek science fiction topics are allowed in. Just look at our website to see that we are a legitimate organization whose membership base exceeds the life sci student enrolment at many universities in the world - Stethoscope Member (who just started using the edit button so i dont know how to add the fancy tags) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.120.30 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2005}
• Delete completely nn. — Phil Welch 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with a greater UoT article if possible, otherwise keep, and give the anon a supply of tissues. Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest ;-) --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Student organizations are a dime a dozen, but 750 members at Canada's largest university. Sounds like a (marginal, maybe) keeper to me. — Cory Maylett 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.I would vote to Keep if this level of membership could be verified or proof of expansion to other campuses could be provided. I would otherwise vote to merge with a Student organizations at the University of Toronto or similar article as there is verifiable evidence of its existence see [2]. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome, Stethoscope Member to Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. For what it's worth, I don't think a lot of the obscure geek science fiction topics are notable either, but they have a dedicated sockpuppet fan base to come on and vote for their junk. —Cleared as filed. 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am another stethoscope member, and all I can say is please examine the merits of the organization by looking at the website, rather than listening to people whose only comment is "non notable" without explaining why it is non notable, considering the size of the organization and their lack of familiarity with even the university of toronto. If all it takes is a sockpuppet fan base to flood this with keep votes, then we can easily get dozens of members to put down some sort of comment on why this should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.90.251 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Unregistered users are not eligible to vote, nor are sockpuppets. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really true. The policy is that unregistered and anonymous contributers MAY weigh in on the discussion. All comments should address the issue in regard to Wikipedia's deletion policy and the administrator who closes the discussion is free to disregard votes that appear to have been made without regard to policy, by apparent sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or otherwise in bad faith. Dystopos 01:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student organization. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Proposal: student organizations must be more than, let's see, 5 years old to qualify as notable on their own accord. Bunchofgrapes 22:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the fact that a student organization has been around 5 years is enough to qualify as notable either. —Cleared as filed. 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But certainly the recent formation of this one doesn't help here. Bunchofgrapes 02:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most student organizations that exist at only one university are non-notable. Lots of universities have pre-medical (pre-dental, etc.) organizations, and that's a popular career choice among college students, so it doesn't surprise me that this organization could have 750 members at a campus with about 50,000 undergraduates. However, if this becomes a national pre-med organization, it would probably be notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia in my opinion. --Metropolitan90 01:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the organization appears to have footing.DannyZz 00:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am also a Stethoscope member, and we certainly have a lot of footing. We have high profile events and last year in our inaugural year we actually had Tak Mak and the federal minister of public health come and give a talk, and this year the chief medical officer for Toronto is apparently coming as well. If we are some nonsense non notable club with 7-10 members would those high profile personalities actually take the time to go? De Lovely 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Stethoscope could be, and apparently is, completely legitimate and worthwhile for its members without warranting having a Wikipedia article about it. I don't consider it nonsense, but that doesn't mean it's notable. --Metropolitan90 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since Wikipedia contains extensive articles on every Pokemon character and video game in existence (not to mention its growing library of porn star bios), I believe the bar is sufficiently low enough to enable a good-sized academic organization at a major institution of higher learning to easily meet the entry qualifications. I'm not defending dumbing down Wikipedia (in fact, I'm quite opposed to it), but I am saying that an even and consistent set of criteria should apply. If we allow cartoon characters to have their own articles, but deny them to college organizations, we've taken one more step down the road to Wikipedia becoming little more than a repository of insignificant, pop-culture trivia. — C Maylett 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Maybe we should do the appropriate thing and list all of those insignificant cartoon characters for deletion instead? —Cleared as filed. 10:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: We can't plausibly use the same standards in determining whether Pokemon characters, porn stars, and student organizations are worthy of Wikipedia entries; neither Pikachu nor the Stethoscope has ever won an Adult Video News Award. I don't believe there are any official guidelines about student organizations having Wikipedia entries, but I think most of those I have seen on AfD have failed their votes and been deleted. If you can find precedents in your favor among other student organizations, I would take those into consideration. --Metropolitan90 00:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The organization may merit a mention at Faculty of Medicine, U of T (which, by the way, should be renamed, cleaned up and expanded). The contents are unencyclopedic trivia. Dystopos 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am also a member and it seems valid to be here when compared to some of the stuff that other people who want to delete it have talked about like obscure anime topic. <--- seems like some comment made by another stethoscope member who didnt know how to use wikipedia, i edited it so it doesnt get unfairly attributed to the danny person above 70.30.120.30 13:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What does the group actually do? Pilatus 10:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For keeping I am the first stethoscope member who posted above, i made an account but i forgot my log on name so i am signing off with my ip. Someone mentioned student organizations that have been kept, here is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Sigma_Phi_Philippines . As far as it seems it doesnt have the same scope as our organization since it comes from two small second rate provincial universities in the philippines. They are a considerably older organization, but is age really the matter for notability, or is it the relevance of the organization to an x number of people? We make no financial gain out of having the stethoscope on wikipedia, since our membership is free and open to all, and we even have logged europeans and australians visiting and returning to our website on a regular basis looking for information on the health care professions admissions criteria in canada. This entire article will probably be deleted, but you people who consider yourselves as guardians of wikipedia should really get priorities straight if the message you are sending is that a pokemon character or 60's porn star has more notability than an organization involved in helping the next generation of a first world country's health care profession. 70.30.120.30 13:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity of Binary Independence[edit]

• Delete. IMO, this criterion is neither useful nor well-known enough to merit a wikipedia article. Hermitage 02:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the google results all seem to be from wikipedia or descriptions of Saari's book.
  • Also, the criterion implies that the "intensity of preference" between two candidates can be effectively measured by the number of candidates ranked in between them... this is a serious fallacy.
  • A merge with Borda count would be logical, but it should be made clear that this is a POV definition of preference intensity, not a generally accepted one. --Hermitage 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not vanity, likely verifiable. Mark for cleanup instead. — Phil Welch 02:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Esoteric, but hundreds of Google results. — Cory Maylett 03:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the following reasons: RSpeer 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those hundreds of Google results are almost all the same two texts! One is, of course, the Wikipedia article itself, on mirror sites. The other is a review of Donald Saari's book "Elections and Decisions" (a book promoting the use of the Borda count), which is the only place this term is actually published. Filtering out wikipedia mirrors and reviews of that book leaves one hit, which is a randomly-generated spam page.
  • "Elections and Decisions" has no Wikipedia article; why should a term that only exists as a small part of that book have an article?
  • The criterion is inherently POV. Criteria are used to promote various voting methods over others based on their mathematical properties, based on the assumption that it is desirable to meet that criterion. This criterion is equivalent to the definition of the Borda count, so the article is simply hiding the statement "The Borda count is good" behind some math.
  • The criterion has not been accepted by any voting theorists except its creator, Donald Saari. The user who created this article is a strong fan of Saari.
  • Therefore, I urge people to reconsider their votes.
• Merge But I don't know to what - Independence of irrelevant alternatives perhaps could be expanded. I think this belongs in a general article on voting criteria rather than a seperate very specialised article. If nobody finds a useful merge during the vfd then weak delete. Dlyons493 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack no. Independence of irrelevant alternatives has problems of its own without unrelated criteria being tacked onto it. If the article is merged, it should go to Borda count, but keeping in mind Hermitage's caveat. RSpeer 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per RSpeer. -- Kjkolb 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no one uses this criterion. The creator of the page has already said the page could be merged into another page (e.g. Borda count). KVenzke 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted -- Francs2000 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph thomas[edit]

nn, vanity --Rschen7754 02:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• i believe this article is perhaps the most useful on wikipedia. i believe my education would suffer serverly were this to be deleted. god bless america.

Unsigned comment by Jthomas08 (talk · contribs)

• Textbook case of an A7 speedy delete and tagged as such. — Phil Welch 02:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default to keep 70%+/- to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operating System advocacy[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is a cesspool of original research, with a near absolute lack of refrences to any of the points and counter points. In fact the authors seem to encourage this more by suggesting in the talk page that this article only talk about current debates about current operating systems, leaving out anything historical, refrenceable, and truely encylopedic. put up for deletion by IP:68.127.144.118

Listing was orphaned, now properly listed on AfD. My vote is below. — Phil Welch 03:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons stated. Atlant 14:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. Not sure what the point of this article is except for people to make complaints about systems they don't like. Avenger Penguin 16:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article has the potential to be an encylopaedic account of the phenomenon of operating system advocacy and some of the most notable debates. The introduction starts off well, infact with the exception of the last line of the introduction everything before the table of contents is of high quality. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the rest of the article. Weak delete pending a brilliant re-write. Thryduulf 16:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Idleguy 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article provides some valuable "talking points" in the comparison of operating systems. Especially in the Unix sections, I forget what the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems are; and as a Mac zealot I'm reminded of the problems with my favorite system, as well, when I reccommend it to people. Perhaps it should be re-purposed or something; I agree that it's mainly opinion, not historical but I do see it as a useful reference. justfred 09:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. but clean up and add references. Pamri • Talk 13:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' The content could do with an awful lot more expanding and NPVing, but I would like to see such an article. Certainly many people feel strongly about the issue, but that's a good reason to have a summary of such opinion. Comparison of operating systems has useful technical overview, but surely there is room for a more userfriendly comparison of strengths and weaknesses that should be kept out of 'Comparison_of_operating_systems' and Operating system; the differences between two is important, and not suited to the article on either.
• I, at least, was hoping for a reasoned comparison when I clicked the link.
• The name should probably be changed to something more neutral or merged back into 'Comparison_of_operating_systems', and this be a redirect, or a stub with a discussion of the history of advocacy itself rather than true comparison. --Jack
• Keep assuming it can be cleaned up. --Shawn K. Quinn 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Actual notable phenomenon. Drop the arguments for and against OS's and focus more on the reality of platform zealotry and platform arguments. — Phil Welch 03:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my opinion the last time around, and it remains unchanged. The neutral point of view and no original research policies must be adhered to. This article requires a huge dose of cleanup, including excision of everything in the pro&con lists that cannot be sourced or attributed to a specific proponent, which is pretty much all of it right now. Uncle G 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (sort of): — There's interesting information here, but the premise of the page is goofy and unencylopedic. "Operating system advocacy" — a grandiose and somewhat misleading title for what is mostly just a list of pros and cons of various operating systems. I suggest renaming and rewriting the intro paragraphs to something better suited to the content that follows. — Cory Maylett 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the cart before the horse somewhat. The content that follows the introduction is a huge chunk of original research without either citations or attributions. Rewriting the introduction to match the rest, essentially refactoring this article as a rewrite of comparison of operating systems, is both basing the article around the original research and pointless. We already have that article. The focus of this article, per the title, is the advocacy, and not the actual features of the various operating systems themselves. There's a possibility of an encyclopaedia article on operating system advocacy. People have written about it.

    The "goofy and unencyclopaedic" title relates to the names of several Usenet newsgroups where such arguments have occurred for the past 20 years, by the way, and is the generally accepted term for what transpires within them. Uncle G 18:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep. considering theres been quite alot of edits and discussion by different users Astrokey44 04:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Sure, the article isn't perfect now, but that's no reason to delete it. After a cleanup and the addition of references this will bee a good and encyclopedic article. --Apyule 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article as put to VfD in January of this year. The result was a decision to keep. --Apyule 07:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Definitely a notable topic among us geeks, gives us some talking points and reasons for why the other sides think the way they do, and it was kept in a previous AfD. --Idont Havaname 14:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs cleanup, NPOVing and refs, but a worthy article nontheless. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - double jeopardy, anonymous nomination. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contains virtually no information that is not contained in the title. Operating systems advocacy is the practice of advocating an operating system. Followed by a list. An opinionated list of pairs of operating systems, without even a note as to why specific operating systems are paired. A blank page could become an encyclopedic article, too, but we don't keep them. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject to heavy cleanup. Shauri 19:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 04:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Fayad[edit]

not informational content

Speedy delete. they created an article with "OMG TARIK IS SOOOOO HOT!!! I JUST WANNA GREASE HIM UP AND MAKE HIM MINE!!!!!!" in it O_o Astrokey44 03:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edited out...sry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.119.40 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Still inherently non-notable. Delete. Titoxd 03:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete — junk article — Cory Maylett 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Total nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 03:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"advanced searchbar"[edit]

Not notable and an ad. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:57, 18 Sep 2005 (CDT)}

Delete. Two sentence ad Astrokey44 04:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 September 2005

• Keep this and all other pages Gadugi has nominated. Contributions must not be redacted. Ashibaka (tock) 04:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to repeat this comment on all the six pages, since the closing admin will look at them separately. --cesarb 05:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is very interesting and could be a great resource for anyone wishing to learn more about the Cherokee culture. --Icarus 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is All You are Getting. I am NOT going to describe or relate the ancient syllabary on this forum or any other forum at this point. Our ancient writings will remain secret at this point. You are wasting your time -- this is all you are going to get from me. Do-na-da Go-hv-i Ni-go Di-sge-s-di Gadugi 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did anyone say they wanted you to describe or relate anything more than you've already freely offered? --Icarus 06:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Is this one of the vitriolic comments I am so used to from admins on this site? 67.177.35.211 06:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No vitriol is intended. Your choice of words made it sound like you were angry, so I pointed out that there's no need for you to get upset over a request that no one's made. --Icarus 06:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, to the verifiability requirement, Wikipedia does not publish secrets; that is, Wikipedia cannot be used for the first publication of information that was previously secret. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe this problem has been solved as the Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya has directed that the ancient syllabary will not be published anywhere except among our people until the prophecies have been fulfilled. Gadugi 21:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable information about Cherokee culture. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DES. Penelope D 06:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Pleased; I am pleased. This was indeed a great article. 67.177.35.211 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A good article. Hopefuly someone else will be interested in expanding it. -- Friedo 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User Gadugi, we try not to allow libel or lynch mobs or such problems. Where they happen, you can help us better by reverting the bad changes to restore a previous correct version, and by alerting us at the "Vandalism in progress" page. Welcome, and peace. Barno 08:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC), friend to a former WIC nutritionist to the Northern Cheyenne reservation.[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Capitalistroadster and others - can anyone verify this information from a printed source? I'm amazed to find nothing online about this ancient syllabary. User:Gadugi's talk page makes interesting reading and his veracity has been challenged. There are no records of an "Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni" online (according to Google) and a couple of the user's other edits have been challenged. It's possible that this request for deletion owes something to a wish to avoid being caught out. There are credited sources for each article - can anyone find them offline to confirm? Please note that in the absence of independent corroboration I do not have an opinion one way or another on either Gadugi or the facts of this article.Vizjim 10:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Vizjim, I have checked the ISBN for the book Cherokee cited in the references and Redlightgreen appears to indicate it is a legitimate book. That being said, I am in Australia and will have difficulty in accessing this book within the timeframe. It would be good if someone in the US could check out this and other sources to confirm that this is a verifiable article about a notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this amazon link shows that the book is real, and does have an index entry for the relevant subject. However, that page is not available online via amazon. DES ^(talk) 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great research!! (Now why didn't I think of that?) The entry there spells it as "Ani-kutani" and that throws up 461 hits on Google. With that in mind, I'd redirect to Ani-kutani and keep the article.Vizjim 11:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been bold and moved it. Great research, all around. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is, in the process, you have broken the AfD link. Normally articels on Afd are not supposed to be moved for thsi very reason. I would advise that you either move it back or fix the link. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's a little more. Searching www.a9.com and selecting "books" (which is about the same as Amazon's "search inside this book") can be useful. The page in question is this but it really only confirms the existence of the "Ani-kutani priesthood." If that link doesn't work due to Amazon's protection against a single user reading too much, go to the book description in Amazon and do a "search inside this book" for "priesthood." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My local library has the book Cherokee (I live within the Cherokee Nation boundries). I will get it this afternoon and see how much of this article I can verify. Dsmdgold 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject. Whether it's factually accurate or not is not a matter for AfD. -- Plutor 13:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - come on, Gadugi, If this is true then it is very important information and should not be covered up. I have had a similar problem with someone else covering up information I added about the ancient Micmac writing script; see Talk:Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing... Codex Sinaiticus 16:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for nomination. Wikipedia has no concept of an author owning and article, and every edit page says clearly "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Where did Gadugi see any "guarantee," express or implied, that contributions would never be defaced? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• phandsvrta keep. Notable Subject : Googling "+written cherokee language" reveals the syllabary, at least the 1820s Sequoyah syllabary, which isn't that ancient. It also reveals a lot of good, learned material on this topic which deserves collation in Wikipedia. Merkey (aka Gadugi) is attempting to suppress already freely available information. Don't allow it.
  • note that Gadugi has stated that the "ancient syllabary" is much older than, and compeltely different from the syllabary created by Sequoyah. DES ^(talk) 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• phandsvrta keep There's more, from http://www.neosoft.com/powersource/gallery/people/sequoyah.html

This includes a picture of the syllabary. I'd have pasted it in, but don't know how to use wikipedia for an image yet, and I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source.

• Speedy Keep I regret my actions here. Please keep this article. Also, Phandsvrta is an SCOX member who has been extremely vocal. Since he does not know anything about our Culture or language, I ask the other editors to heavily scrutinze any edits or defacements he makes to this article. Gadugi 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• phandsvrta response

I will second Jeff's sentiment to scrutinize all contributions - mine or otherwise. I have indeed been vocal, and will continue being vocal as long as attempts are made to suppress freedom of information and speech. And, as far as I know, I haven't made any defacements to this article (I'm not adept at using wikipedia, so don't rule out ignorance or finger trouble!).

Jeff, if there is an older syllabary than that of Sequoyah, why isn't it visible elsewhere? There is a LOT of Cherokee information out there, but all references to a written language only get as far as Sequoyah. Surely you woudn't want something as fundamental and precious to wither away in obscurity?

Think of it as adding to the richness found in other, old languages, such as Norn (the ancient language of Orkney), or Ogham (pre-Gaelic Irish), or Kernewek (the direct descendant of the ancient language spoken by Celtic settlers who inhabited Cornwall (Kernow) and most of the British Isles long before the Roman conquest). Many of these were suppressed by later conquerors, and only survived underground. They are now being resurrected and appreciated for their historical and cultural value. I'd want the same for a previously unkown Cherokee written form.

Wouldn't you want to know how to read the Inca Quipus (spelling?)?

I speak as a Scot, living in Ireland. Our native Gaelic was brutally suppressed by the English, only surviving in the Western Isles, including Ireland. As language powerfully shapes a culture, losing languages is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

• Keep - and I suppose one of us great [google/A9] researchers could pick up a phone and call the An-ni-yv-wi-ya Religious organization at the number provided in the references section for more verification. Dystopos 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gadugi[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. I do not consider what goes in on this site to be "gadugi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 September 2005

• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same as above. -- Friedo 07:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Please consider retaining this article if the other editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete foreign dictdef. That's pretty good criterion for deletion, IMO.  Grue  17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very important concept in Cherokee culture. It comprises more that just the definition of the word. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There. Now it no longer meets the criteria as a dictdef. Happy? 67.137.28.187 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2005
• Merge into Cherokee or Cherokee language --Icarus 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cherokee. Penelope D 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Of course, this begs the question "Then why did you create the article if you want it removed?" I think it is good and useful encyclopedic information, and I'm glad you added it. There has been no problem with defacement so far. The wiki process is pretty good at dealing with defacement when it occurs, although unfortunately there is no way to prevent it. Plenty of articles dealing with sacred subects do get defamed on occasion here, but this is only a surface phenomenon. What is truly sacred cannot be defamed. Codex Sinaiticus 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to that is pretty obvious. The creator got into some rahter nasty disputes with others on wikipedia, mostly if not compeltely unrealted to thsi article. In the course of this, it seems that at least one user posted derogatory language related to the creator's cherokee ethnicity, or at least he took it that way. See the history of the creator's talk page, his user contributions, and jimbo's recent post on WP:AN/I if you want more details. I can see why these events left the article creator very unhappy with wikipedia, although i think he is mistakenly attributing to all of us the acts of a very few. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Galugi is reverting my attempts to clean up the article and is even refusing that it be categorized as an "ethnic group"-stub, claiming that the term is inherently racial [3]. Could we just redirect this to Cherokee already? It has no value on its own and it's certainly not going to be stormed by the deletionist mafia or anything. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cherokee. Gazpacho 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An excellent article in the making. Gadugi: don't despair.... get other editors involved if you are having a hard time with some editors. We are here to help. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cherokee. We don't need separate articles on native names. I cleaned up all of the rather chatty linguistic info, but there was nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already present in Cherokee language. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Also, please remove the term "ethnic group" and do not remove the breakdown of the language constructs. This portion is extremely helpful to those trying to understand how Cherokee verb stems are constructed. Gadugi 18:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted the redirect. The convention is that articels are not usually converted to redirects, moved, or blanked while an AfD discusiion is in progress. Moreover, assuming that it is verifiabel, the information here strikes me as relevant and should be kept soemwhere. The precise form of the article is another matter. I woulkd say to Gadugi, most people in the US who are not native americans tend to view "indian tribes" as more ethnic than political, and even though it is true that formal membership is a political act, and people may well be descended from native amaricans but not have any formal tribal membership, is it not true that such membership is generally only open to people with such ancestry? If so, it is not a "pure" political association, but more a combination of political and ethnic/racial identity. Correct me if I am wrong, please. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response to DES This statement is essentially correct. Membership does require membership in a racial group, however, membbership in an Indian tribe is a political relationship with the US government. It is the policy of the TRIBES to restrict ot members of their race, which is an issue of sovereignty. The problem with using ethnic language to describe this is that under US law, the 14th ammendment which prohibits racial discrimination has been used over and over again by non-indians to claim they have the right to posessess eagle feathers, use and distribute drugs like peyote to non-indians, etc. under Laws which protect Native American Culture. The Courts have had to rule that the relationship is political in order to protect our culture from people like these. So public references, like an encycplopedia, could be used as Court exhibit over and over again in this stale and mouldy argument these people use to setup drug distribution businesses run by non-indians who prey off our culture, and bring us into disrepute. So that's why I object to using the word, "ethic". Also, this particular article is about the language. The editor Karmosin tried to change it into an ethnic article by removing the language constructs. The article should stay the way it is, as I created it and intended it as a starting point to teach others our language. Gadugi 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah I see your points. Thre ought to be a properly nuanced way to indicvate booth the political and the racial/gentic issues involve, but that kind of discusion realy belongs on the talk page of this article, not on this AfD discussion. I also see that an article about language is not the smae as an articel about the peopel who speak that language. Well it looks to me as if the result here will be keep, but there there is the ewndless process of debating and, one hopes, improving the article. I personaly would oppose a change to a simple redirect as things stand. DES ^(talk)
      • I don't see anything constructive in DES' revert of my redirect. The AfD is effectively over since Gadugi has voted against his own nomination and the article doesn't serve any purpose. We already have Cherokee which is about the exact same thing, except it uses the commonly used name of the tribe as per our naming conventions. Like I pointed out before; we don't keep 日本人 separate from Japanese people for a very good reason. What's there to argue here? / Peter ^Isotalo 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • • An AfD is either over or not. The reason for not creating a redirect until the AfD is formally closed is to preserve the two-way link between the discussion and the article being discussed. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any case, I think that the linguistc information in the article as it stands is of value, and doing a simple redirect amouts to delting this information. Either the information should be merged into Cherokee, or the article should stand as a separeate articel, with proper links. It is not particualrly urgent to do either, so the matter should be discussed on Talk:Cherokee or on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya, or both, an an attempot made to come to a consensus on what do do. there was not a consensus here on a simple redirect without merging the info. Put up ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)) if you linke, to advertise a proposed merge. Or propose a simple redir on Talk:Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya and do it if you get something approaching consensus. I will arguie agaisnt such a redir -- unless there is evidence indiacting that the content of the current articel is false to fact, or is unverifiable. I trust that explains my views clearly. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp Dance[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2005

• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- Friedo 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nominated in bad faith. Gazpacho 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see comments on other articles submitedd by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Please retain this article if the editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel this does have merit. -- Malo 06:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee black drink[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 September 2005

• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- Friedo 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 10:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nominated in bad faith. Gazpacho 19:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see comments on other articles submitedd by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I regret my actions here. Please consider retaining this article if the other editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Neutrality^talk 18:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ni-yv-wi-ha[edit]

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 September 2005

• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to correct spelling: Ah-ni-yv-wi-ya --Icarus 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote: Merge any info not already there to Cherokee language. (I kept my old vote above because other voters have cited it.) --Icarus 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. The article already has a complete phonology which makes it quite obvious that no [r] exists. The same goes for the agglunative nature of the morphology. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I change my vote back to Redirect or delete. Redirect if it's likely that someone will search for this misspelling, delete if it's not. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that decision. --Icarus 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above; appears to be a duplication. In any event, no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Icarus3. Capitalistroadster 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Icarus3. TheMadBaron 10:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both renditions to Cherokee. We're not a Cherokee-English dictionary and the tribe is not widely known under this name. Keeping a separate article for the native name is like keeping separate articles for "日本人" and "Japanese people". / Peter ^Isotalo 14:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Molotov (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see comments on other articles submited by same editor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BombayBiz India Ltd[edit]

Unheard Indian webhosting firm. Seems to be another promotional page. Pamri • Talk 04:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Although Google does return some results, as an Indian and a Bombay resident, I find it non-notable. utcursch | talk 05:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Swanson[edit]

not notable, vanity 68.198.246.166 05:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: — simple vanity page — Cory Maylett 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: vanity --Icarus 05:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -R. fiend 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cage (enclosure)[edit]

dicdef Icarus 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Stub has potential: there are many different cage types and uses (eg a prison cage, a birdcage, a rollcage, a wrestling cage-match). An encyclopedic overview of these could be useful. Anetode 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anetode. Stubby indeed but can be expanded. Also, is the first hit on the Cage disambiguation list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it probably should be at Cage with the dab page at Cage (disambiguation). Dunc|☺ 12:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't move disambig pages to XXX (disambiguation) if XXX is already used as a disambig page. It serves no practical purpose. I've redirected the example above to make it a bit harder to make another pointless move. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The examples given above are relevant to articles like prison and wrestling, not as a separate article. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Clear potential for expansion. — brighterorange (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. If kept, move cage to cage (disambiguation) and move cage (enclosure) to cage. -Sean Curtin 23:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The name should remain as is. Given the number of entries in the DAB article, it makes sense to leave the DAB article where it is. Vegaswikian 07:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand - a dull article, but has potential. --MacRusgail 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. A cage is one of those apparently dull, everyday things like a door or a nail that should have an article. --A bit iffy 13:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -R. fiend 14:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Services of Ontario[edit]

Advertisement, reads like a corporate brochure. Verifiability, I could not find this in any of several google searches, and no sources are proved. The name implies a Canadian firm, but the text described a Brazilian firm. Not enough context. Delete unless significantly improved, and notability clearly established. DES ^(talk) 05:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: — agree with above — Cory Maylett 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Business promotion waffle for some non-notable moneylenders. (The firm named is described as starting in Brazil and moving to Canada.) An http://www.altavista.com search got 69 results, but in many of them "financial services of Ontario" was an ordinary generic descriptive phrase. Anthony Appleyard 06:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. -- Friedo 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found this, which is probably not the same thing. A google search for "financial services of ontario" Oliveira yields nothing - zip, zilch, nada. Mindmatrix 17:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. Ground Zero | t 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. WMMartin 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile companies[edit]

This article is a blatant commercial advert. If anyone wants to speedy it, then go right ahead. jmd 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Advertisement. No evidence of notability. Does not qualify for a speedy. I've removed the clickable and searchable links, to defeat linkspamming. DES ^(talk) 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam. -- Friedo 07:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Clearly spam. ClementSeveillac 19:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam, but I'll bet it's a copyvio as well. -- Mwanner 23:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was uncertain, but decided to merge/redirect to Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. -R. fiend 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strag[edit]

Minor term from a work of fiction, alibiet a very popular one. (Minor enough that I don't recall the term, and i have a good memory for such trivia, and yes I read the book, and listened to the radio shows.) I don't see this term as notable on its own, and i don't see any reason for this to be a separate page on wikipedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 05:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect? Anthony Appleyard 06:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a need for one. Is this a likely search term? DES ^(talk) 06:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very obscure term. If there's a list of words coined in the Guide, then this should be merged thereto. --193.166.11.251 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, for now, at least. I'd vote to delete (since this is not notable, and cannot possibly be expanded), but there appear to be precedents for redirection (see hoopy, frood). If there isn't a list of words coined in the Guide, then someone should probably start one. TheMadBaron 10:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I adore Adams and I've read the book(s) several times, but this is just cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with a list of terms from ther series, but don't delete. I know myself that I tend to search for some obscure stuff on WP time and again. I bet others do too.--Azathar 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with a list of terms from the series. --A bit iffy 13:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Albert Award For Outstanding Service To Australian Music[edit]

Seems like a parody to me. jmd 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an award at the Australasian Performing Right Association APRA Awards see [4] . I think that this could best be addressed by expanding the APRA article to mention the awards which are significant awards in Australia. Ted Albert after whom the awards were named was a significant figure in the Australian music industry and Albert Productions was a notable Australian record company with The Easybeats, AC-DC and John Paul Young amongst others recording for the label see [5] BTW, the article could be a copyvio referring to AC/DC winning the award for its contribution to the awards. I will expand the APRA article to refer to the awards including this one so Delete.Capitalistroadster 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely real - either keep or merge with the Australasian Performing Right Association article Grutness...wha? 08:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (APRA member)[reply]
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Googling reveals that the text was lifted from [6] (no longer available). It concerns AC/DC more than it concerns the Ted Albert Award, which is best mentioned in the context of the APRA article. TheMadBaron 10:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have expanded the Australasian Performing Right Association article to include the awards including a paragraph on this award. No change of vote from Delete. Capitalistroadster 11:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable award. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is a copyright violation of the cached page as noted in comments by MadBaron--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment Party[edit]

neologism, non-notable. delete. DES ^(talk) 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Marskell 09:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ditto ≈ jossi ≈ 21:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I never heard of this phrase and even if it was notable, it should be in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Solarusdude 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn-neo. --Daveb 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yelpo[edit]

Not notable and very little content. -- Mareklug ^talk 06:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Or merge into the entertainer's page if

anyone can be bothered. Dlyons493 07:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - possible vanity, no content of any use. Google search for Oliver Cheah doesn't suggest that he's notable at all, so his nickname is sub-non-notable. CLW 07:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like this was meant to be a redirect to Oliver Cheah. Of course, such a redirect, having no target article, would be eligible for immediate deletion. Can we save the trouble and speedy delete this instead? Pick one or some combination of nn-bio, empty, or db-attack. Friday (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, then. Judging from Yelpo's history, the page oscillates between "infamous gay" and "famous" Swedish entertainer -- a form of nn-bio, almost empty, and db-attack. Mareklug ^talk 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, after rewrite. -R. fiend 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inbound link[edit]

Delete as this was made as link spam and will attract more (note: I removed original creator's link and only other editors link as well). It's true a good article could in theory be made. I'm open to changing my mind, but I think there are enough other articles, where this could be mentioned. I'm also not sure if it qualifies as a dicdef. rob 07:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam magnet. Dlyons493 07:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At present, little more than a dictdef. I don't think there is a full article to be written about this subject, and it is surely a spam magnet. DES ^(talk) 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, I was wrong. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a redirect to Hyperlink or something similar? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hefty article overhaul, I think this is a keeper now. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's quite difficult to understand even after the overhaul. I don't see why this deserves its own article. It doesn't seem relevant other than to webmonkeys. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, difficult to understand is not grounds for deletion. Why not pose your question on the article talk page and/or my talk page (as the rewrite author)? Additionally, not relevant to everybody is applicable to pretty much every article here. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather difficult to understand and that's a comment as to the state of the article. The motivation is that it's overly specific professional jargon. It's too technical and obscure to deserve it's own article, just like truck driver shop talk or nursespeak doesn't belong here. "Not relevant to everybody" is your wording, though, not mine. I wouldn't mind a short summary and redirect to hyperlink, though. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, relevant to webmonkeys and to those who study their behavior. Kappa 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's tantamount to professional, technical jargon as far as I see it. And who are these people who "study their behavior"? Behavioral scientists with Java-bananas? / Peter ^Isotalo 06:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for Java-banana junkies. Alf ^melmac 10:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I'm no longer asking for this to be deleted, based on the rewrite. I'm still skeptical, regarding link-spam, so I'll let others decide this. I suppose the real method for dealing with link-spam is blocking, more than deletion though. --rob 21:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Allis[edit]

Vanity type article. Just spam. CambridgeBayWeather 07:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or re-write - just vanity as is. The curate's egg 07:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom - jmd 07:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal/Request for Non-Deletion

Per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy of who can have a listing, "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"

I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044. I have removed links to commercial sites and am happy to edit/re-write article, however required. I appreciate your consideration and hope to become part of the community.

• Writing about yourself is a rather poor way to join. It's also going to set up a pretty strong presumption that you don't deserve an article, because if you did, why would you have to write it yourself? This is not a venue for self-promotion, which if your claims are to be believed, is something you obviously don't need Wikipedia for anyway. Postdlf 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I almost forgot—writing and editing content about yourself makes it inherently suspect because of your natural bias and conflict of interest regarding objective description. Cheers. Postdlf 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite those concerns, I'm going to vote a weak keep because Mr. Allis's book is selling on Amazon, and one of the two websites has a respectable Alexa rating. I'll be watching the discussion to see if anyone can change my mind because I'm on the fence on this one. And everyone should be watching to make sure this article, if kept, is not just part of a PR campaign. Postdlf 07:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allis's book is on Amazon.com, but anyone can use a vanity publisher and get their book listed for sale on Amazon.com. Who is it published by? A company called Virante Inc. Who are Virante Inc? Their founder and President & CEO are a certain Ryan Allis. The book does have 11 reviews (10 of which are glowing 5 star reviews) on Amazon. But again, do some research. Two of the reviews are identical. All but two of the reviewers have reviewed this book AND THIS BOOK ONLY. Which arouses my suspicions. Of the other two reviewers, one states that he knows the author personally (as do other "one-off" reviewers) and the other (the only reviewer I would trust, i.e. who does not know the author and has reviewed other books on Amazon) gives it the only non-5-star rating... a one-star rating. This all leads me to suspect over-hyping vanity, both on Amazon and here. Hence, delete (and add to watchlist to see if it gets kept and grows in vanity or gets deleted and relisted). CLW 08:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Postdlf, thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your 'weak keep' vote. I have read the full articles on deletion guidelines and vanity guidelines. I agree that the initial version of the article was vanity--I simply was unaware of the guidelines but can assure you I am now. I have registered as a user to remove any anonymity behind any edits. If the article is allowed to be kept I certainly promise not make any edits that encourage any commercial agenda.
• Delete as per CLW. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other outside sources:

• http://www.accomplishlife.com/authors/65/Ryan-Allis
• http://www.ezinearticles.com/?expert=Ryan_Allis
• http://www.woopidoo.com/articles-allis.htm
• Press articles - http://ryanallis.com/index.php#press
• Delete per CLW's research. Self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CLW. -feydey 10:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CLW's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, CLW convinced me. Delete. Postdlf 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All right I've removed the text of the article, please feel free to delete. I will keep working to build my notoriety and hope to be deemed worthy one day. In the mean time, I will build a user profile and start contributing to the community in other areas. Thanks for the reviews and feedback. 66.255.35.66 19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this IP is different from the one that wrote the article. Someone else undid the blanking. I suggest we let this run its AFD course. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CLW's research. — ciphergoth 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, extreme vanity. And why do you want to wait till you're 60 years old before running for President? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson Falade[edit]

Undergrad vanity, possibly speediable. Only claims to notability are as a columnist to a student newspaper, The Manitoban, and as a chess player "on the national level". I admire his enthusiasm for chess, a game I also love, but the Chess Federation of Canada indicates that he isn't a very strong player, as he has a 1720 rating. (A notably strong Candadian player would have a rating of 2300+.) Quale 07:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. --rob 07:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability established, chesswise or journalistwise. Personally I think a chess player in general needs to hold some sort of international title to be notable (except for some historic players, before such titles were introduced). International Grandmasters, Woman Grandmasters and national chess champions are OK. International Masters and FIDE masters are borderline. An Elo rating 1720 isn't remotely close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -Gheorghe Zamfir 08:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, and so tagged. Only remote possibility for assertion of notability is "plays chess on a national level and has aspirations to compete in the international circle", which, as discussed here, doesn't make him notable yet. Friday (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -R. fiend 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soulad[edit]

This seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable software product. It also is very poorly wikified. jmd 07:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. --rob 08:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. By the way, do we have any policies about not having direct links from articles to .exe's? Seems like a nice way to deliver virii. Bunchofgrapes 23:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advert. -- Mwanner 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MobileChilli.com[edit]

pure linkspam. Delete DES ^(talk) 07:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article is advertisement Anetode 08:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advertisement. And a poor one at that - at least decide whether you are called "Mobilechilli.com" or "Mobilechill.com" before placing your free ad here! CLW 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% offensive (see user contributions) spam. ClementSeveillac 19:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And block the author, whose entire "contribution" to Wikipedia has consisted of inserting this same text into half a dozen articles in addition to the two up for deletion here. -- Mwanner 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ad. Carbonite | Talk 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad --Ebz 09:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Decided to smerge/redirect to Withnail and I -R. fiend 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withnail and I drinking game[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Rules for a drinking game don't strike me as being particularly encyclopediac. MC MasterChef 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because wiki is not paper, and there are 49 articles in the drinking game category. The content of this particular one could at least be merged with Withnail and I because the list is a list of drinks he drinks in the movie. Astrokey44 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Withnail and I article already seems to address the existence of a drinking game reasonably effectively to me, is a separate list of necessary? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Withnail and I, add link/mention in Drinking Game. And add Camberwell Carrots to the list. Vizjim 10:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup so that, eg....

• finger of cider (with ice)
• finger of cider (with ice)
• finger of cider (with ice)

reads....

• finger of cider (with ice) x3

.... or similar. Add link to 'See Also' section of Withnail and I. (Don't add Camberwell carrots to the list. Trying to drink a spliff could kill you.) TheMadBaron 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A drinking game like any other. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak merge I agree that a drinking game is OK, as long as its notable. Is this notable? Roodog2k (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Notable as an hommage to the amount of drinking that goes on in the film. It's linked already, to Withnail and I, so admins please note if the vote goes 'delete' that'll need cleaning up. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Ok, so I am genuinely unclear: are rules for a game considered valid Wikipedia entries as long as the game is notable? MC MasterChef 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn drinking game (althought that may be redundant). User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real drinking game. Kappa 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If anyone searches for "Withnail and I drinking game" (which seems somewhat unlikely) they'll surely find the film, and there will be this charming text. -- Mwanner 00:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A real game and the article has useful content that won't fit in the Withnail and I article. --Apyule 01:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've heard of this drinking game and know of the film. But do we really have to list every drink they have? Why not just mention a few lines in the film, if people want try do the game, they watch the film. - Hahnchen 02:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Daveb 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough, very popular at (Ox) Uni apparently (I asked). Alf ^melmac 10:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, my question: Is notability the revelant criteria for these games (I don't drink personally, so I will defer to others on whether this qualifies as nn or not), or should all these drinking game rules articles (here's another example, which is somehow up for WP:COTW) be deleted (or transwikied to Wikibooks maybe?) on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? I'm not asking rhetorically, I really don't know what the consensus interpretation is. MC MasterChef 10:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep becuase I see no reason to delete and I am not a deletionist Batmanand 23:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus: default to keep. Could probably be merged somewhere, however. -R. fiend 15:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne (drinking game)[edit]

As above, there are probably a number of others from drinking game that could be listed as well. MC MasterChef 08:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Drinking game as its only a couple lines. Astrokey44 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Notable, I just wish there was more about HOW the hell it became notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until somebody can verify this, turn on the red light towards this article. Karmafist 21:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Until Sting releases "Roxanne, let's drink a big pint", Delete. Unlike the Withnail and I drinking game above this, this is purely a random "find an excuse to drink some stuff" game. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A drinking game like many others. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn drinking game. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real drinking game. Kappa 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roodog2k. --Apyule 01:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -R. fiend 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cestoidea[edit]

• The article is a very, very cheap copy of Cestoda. In other words; incomplete and duplicate information. Delete --SoothingR 09:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect to Cestoda Anetode 10:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily redirected to Cestoda, since they're the same thing. Friday (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cestoda per Anetode and Friday.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Projectro[edit]

Article is bizarre gibberish Anetode 09:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as patent non-sense. I think the ((db-nonsense)) could be used on article like this instead of "afd" --rob 09:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that option Anetode 10:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. nonsense. -feydey 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sent to speedy CLW

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Parker[edit]

• NN Tedious vanity piece The curate's egg 10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I made it much smaller. Sorry for the details. Still learning. [Posted by 216.189.121.210 - the article's creator - who has now removed 98% of the piece]
• Delete as per The curate's egg CLW 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Note to creator of article: It's not the length per se that's the problem. It's the length of non-notable stuff, that's the problem. You have to read WP:BIO and see what wikipedia thinks is notable, and worthy of inclusion. Then, the article must show this, and provide verifiable proof (like footnotes) of it. I read the old version and new, and I don't see anything meeting the requirements. As an example, if Parker is the "author of several important historical papers", then the question is what papers, why are they important, where were they published, who published them, how widely were they read, etc... --rob 11:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rob. No problem with changing this vote if the author can add verifiably important papers. Dlyons493 13:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It may qualify as a nn-bio speedy, but it's hard to tell from current content. Friday (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by author.

• Delete quickly, borderline speedy deletion candidate as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 19:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. DannyZz 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schalken Fur Kreativitat[edit]

plus two images.

Formed in 2005. First album still being recorded. Does this pass the Wiki tests for bands? -- RHaworth 10:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Young aspiring band, with potential, a great insightful page [Anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)

Keep! [Another anon edit by 144.136.84.147 - the creator of the article!)

• Strong Delete and I don't like their vandlising this vote either!The curate's egg 10:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dudes and dudettes, i don't really hate portuguese, i love them, they just have to stop crashing into mclarens, k? don't delete us and be porklits, stay cool

that stuff i said about asians is that i only dont like them when they walk on the wrong side of stairs blocking people from their trains meaning that they get home 1/2 hr later. its keep to the left dammit. otherwise there cool people. please keep this page. we have potential as a band and you know you will regret when we make it. thanks

Uh, no, we will not regret it when you make it. We will then say "Oh, Schalken Fur Kreativitat have now become notable. Now is the time for us to create a Wikipedia article about them." CLW 11:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not yet notable (and not holding breath) CLW 11:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Delete. nothing links to it & google says: "Your search - "Schalken Fur Kreativitat" - did not match any documents." [7] Astrokey44 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the website is still under construction

this page should definitely stay-new bands like this could be the next stones and wiki could say they had them from the beggining

alright you guys crossed the line, you can all have sex with moles, coz you aren't good enough for dog dick. we're already huge turkey gobblers

according to the wiki deletion policy since i have written a book on the band, I am a published author with an audience of over 5,000 and send out a monthly newsletter to over 13,000. I also intend to run for President of the U.S. in 2044

• Delete: Promo/vanity page for a wanting-to-be-discovered band. — Cory Maylett 18:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rogues for" deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. --Daveb 09:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Dudes and dudettes. Oh, and Anon I.P. for Prez in '44! :) -Sean 03:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey turdburgrets, why stop aj from spreading the truth? lets keep this site from being run by mr. hitler, yeah?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Web Developers[edit]

NN Vanity - see also fancruft piece on Darryl Parker The curate's egg 10:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - advertising, possibly created to drive traffic towards listed URL CLW 10:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are thousands of Web development companies, and I see nothing to separate this company from the pack. Not notable, no real information and probable promo page. — Cory Maylett 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Come back when you're notable. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo. DannyZz 00:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Foster[edit]

Non-notable. Possible vanity. Biggest claims to notability as student radio DJ and high school actor. 3 likely Google hits: 1 mirrored article on Nationmaster.com and 2 as author of music reviews for student radio website. Gimboid13 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with TUNE! FM Astrokey44 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with TUNE! FM as per Astrokey44 Dlyons493 13:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think this is even notable enough to warrant a merge with TUNE! FM. CLW 13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, before people start creating articles from all the redlinks in there. Maybe a merge is OK, but I don't see much content to move. Don't think we need a redirect, tho. Friday (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: High-school student who volunteers as a part-time radio host. Non-notable, vanity page. Merge not warranted. — Cory Maylett 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as one line in list. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Non-notable bio. Quale 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex talk[edit]

While Sex talk may well be a notable enough topic for an article, I don't think any of the current content is salvageable. Ashenai 10:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed. Delete. Already covered by Phone sex Astrokey44 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reasonable article or stub is made establishing notability. Currently, an orphan article. Capitalistroadster 11:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not encyclopedic, not useful. And doesn't even mention the T'Pau single of the same name! CLW 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Molotov (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ≈ jossi ≈ 21:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article essentially has no information that is not obvious from the title. Sex talk is talk about sex. Alternatively, could be redirected to phone sex. Should not be kept in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Phone sex is over the phone; sex talk is conversation about sex. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to phone sex "sex talk" is a term used in English. DannyZz 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - self-evident "Sex talk" = "talking about sex" is no real article at all. --MacRusgail 17:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PBD-Medien[edit]

Vanity, advertisment. Delete. Lupo 10:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The user that created it also did Penelope Black Diamond and not much else. Astrokey44 11:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn CLW 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, self promotion — Cory Maylett 17:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parhaat kaikessa, Maksatulehdus, Rajoittuneet[edit]

Probably a hoax, I don't know of any such band. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) my nomination below:

All three are band-stubs written by a known vandal and hoax maker who has been banned from Finnish Wikipedia. Even if some of these were real, which I very much doubt, they should likely be deleted as obscure and non-notable garage bands. Zero hits from Google when discounting search terms normal Finnish language usage. Delete all. jni 12:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked [8], a database of 18 100 rock bands in Finland, these were not found. Wempain 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per jni Dlyons493 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Friday (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. -feydey 17:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wempain 06:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete this is the first of two fake bands this user has posted. CambridgeBayWeather 06:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. -R. fiend 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel knight: blood of the sacred, blood of the damned[edit]

• Delete Useless. Not likely it will ever be expanded. NRS11 19:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Real game, so it's easily expandable. In fact, there's an already-expanded version inside our Gabriel Knight article. Redirect there. —Cryptic (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Cryptic CLW 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, obviously.  Grue  17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galk[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. A neologism; it should either be deleted or redirected to Google Talk; I haven't looked through the google hits enough to decide which. (There are a lot of false positives.) I have looked through the Google Print hits; none are relevant, so please don't transwiki it. —Cryptic (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete since a google search for galk "google talk" returns only 24 hits. — brighterorange (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non encyclopedic. DannyZz 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorous cumbia[edit]

Due to the recent discovery of several hoaxes by the same user who did Gauchos Pesados and many other already deleted hoaxes under the IPs 200.73.180.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 200.73.180.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), we should consider deleting Glamorous cumbia, which is a original expresion, as stated in the no original research policy. -Mariano 12:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I thought I had never heard that expression. A pity, really. Parts of the info should be moved somewhere (is there such a thing as Argentine cumbia?). --Pablo D. Flores 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absent some form of verifiability. -- Visviva 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Never heard of it before. Cinabrium 03:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment: The usable text from the article has already been moved to either Argentine cumbia or Ráfaga, therefore, it can be safely deleted. Thanks Pablo . -Mariano 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pablo: Yes there is. especially in the light of Marcela Morelos, a lot of Correntino cumbia bands, the villeros... elpincha 00:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Archive in the Talk: namespace to preserve history and attribution for the GFDL. —Cryptic (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosney Hog[edit]

• This article contains unverifiable information. Sirex 13:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd was orphaned. Listing now. "Unverifiable" is putting it very charitably; delete as nonsense, possibly speedily. —Cryptic (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsure about speedying, but on the whole, no. There's a lot of much weirder stuff out there which is true, verifiable, and worthy of Wikipedia. This clearly isn't, but it's not really possible to tell without Googling it. -- Ashenai 12:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense CLW 13:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as nonsense, so tagged. Friday (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and rename. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Building[edit]

• Delete -Not notable.--Jondel 08:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article needs work, but if it is accurate this is a major Sydney building. - SimonP 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems notable enough to me. [9] CLW 13:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Heritage listed building which served as Douglas Macarthur's headquarters in World War 2 see [10]. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However it should be moved to Grace Building, Sydney and a DAB page created since there is a more famous Grace Building in New York City. Vegaswikian 07:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though needs cleanup. --Daveb 09:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stu 17:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Patada[edit]

This is an undergraduate joke entered by a confirmed vandal User:210.8.110.33, all of whose other entries are vandalism or intentionally inconsequential. Delete. --Wetman 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, flunks google test. —Cryptic (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cryptic - resounding zero on Google CLW 13:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If there was a "common sense" speedy, this would qualify. Friday (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gobbledeygook. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Firm Delete. This is a sub-undergraduate joke at best. --Daveb 09:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -R. fiend 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guest house[edit]

Delete. This is a dictionary entry and should be moved to Wiktionary. It provides no useful information about guest houses beyond the definition. What more could be said about guest houses anyway? DanMS 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Should be transwikied, as it's a dictdef of an idiom, but no opinion whether it should be kept or deleted afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, keep this one. The very concept of a "guest house" has maaad sociological overtones which do not jump out to us because we're so used to the concept. Besides, think of Kato Kaelin - if we delete this article, where's he gonna stay? -- BD2412 ^talk 13:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki. I don't see any sociological overtones worth keeping an article for. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are many famous guest houses and their implications, etc. Versaille under Louis XIV perhaps and its use for political control? I think this has some worth beyond dict.def. gren グレン 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything there you can add to the article? -- BD2412 ^talk 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Versailles a guest house? I thought it was the royal palace. Please explain what type of political power you're refering to here. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Versailles might not be the best example since it says "exclusive" conversion into a house for guests. However, what I was pointing out is that during the reign of Louis XIV the nobles were getting powerful and his plan to neutralize them was to let them live in Versailles where he had a greater deal of control, etc. However, I suppose if this is only about free standing houses and not guest-wings, etc. then it doesn't work... although, there are guest houses on the premises of many palaces I believe... like Hampton... I forget the name outside of London that Henry VIII owned. gren グレン 01:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep social significance. I couldn't immediately tell you the difference between Bed and Breakfast, Guesthouse, pension (lodging), etc, so I suppose there is potential for a merge if someone know's what they're doing. Dunc|☺ 21:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A guest house is not a form of hotel service. It's just a house one houses guests in. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep eventually someone will write some good history and examples, then it can be related to media and fiction, hopefully not leaving too much room for OJ. Alf ^melmac 10:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Carteret[edit]

I'm not sure if this facility is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, its quite a local establishment. Unless it differs substantially from other gathering places of worship then it should be removed --Hooperbloob 04:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though it might be a small facility. But it's a worship house for hundreds of people. People from all over the tri-state area comes to this temple to pray. They even serves free meal daily. It should not be deleted from the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpabla (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's got a copyvio tag on it. Nothing in the unsigned favorable comment above provides grounds for keeping by WP standards. Once the copyright business is straightened out, I'll weakly favor deletion as not sufficiently noteworthy, unless verifiable evidence otherwise is provided. Barno 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wizard[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page, and non-notable (1550 Google hits, the vast majority unrelated). Ashenai 13:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above. Ashenai 13:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I don't think it's vanity. What's the opposite - anti-vanity? CLW 13:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN and almost libel --Quasipalm 18:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Unless posting to message boards is an "assertion of notability" these days. So tagged. Friday (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.133.3.121, please don't blank this page. If you don't think the 1st Wizard article should be deleted, you should tell us why not! We need to hear all points of view. --Ashenai 18:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but making into a redirect to Halve Maen. -R. fiend 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Half Moon[edit]

Seems to have been created to increase the wiki presence of the village of Grendon. The entry starts off like a dicdef ("Half Moon - noun"). It then says that pubs called the Half Moon often have signs with a half moon on - not very informative. It proceeds to name check Grendon, then gives details of local folklore which is already included in the Grendon article. In summary, I'm not convinced that any of this is encyclopedic. Nor am I convinced that the article could be re-written to be made encyclopedic. CLW 13:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article as it stands refers to the name of one pub in one village. There are many so-called pubs in the UK at least (169 per beerintheevening.com, and that's just registered pubs), then the term "Half Moon" isn't restricted to the name of a pub. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom (band)[edit]

Band Vanity (No Allmusic info, no label, no reviews from notable news outlets, no info on notability.) You know the drill. --Quasipalm 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Quasipalm 13:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. Article may have been created to drive traffic to linked website CLW 14:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - nn. Rynne 21:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. Speedily, maybe? -R. fiend 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservataurus[edit]

Band vanity. You'd think that such an obvious portmanteau would have enough Google hits to muddle the issue, but nope. DS 13:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn, vanity CLW 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, opinion, vanity — Cory Maylett 17:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantoxicosis[edit]

Unfunny neologism cloaked in medical jargon. DS 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonsense CLW 14:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism if possible. Appears to be a joke or hoax. Not tagged as such, as it's probably a stretch. Friday (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nonsensical joke/hoax page — Cory Maylett 18:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as gibberish. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Silliness. --Daveb 09:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dabu[edit]

I would like to thank this article's creator for giving me the chance to make the following abominable pun.

ahem

"Dabu" is a word used by one of the fictional races in the online game World of Warcraft. It is a piece of trivia. In other words...

it is CRAFT-CRUFT.

(bows) DS 13:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehh, don't quit your day job. Delete. --fvw* 14:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Warcruft. —Cryptic (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please, no more puns. ;-) Friday (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete craftcruft!! Thank you, DS! -- MCB 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net newspaper for kids[edit]

I am 95% certain that this article was created by someone no more than 11 years old. It's well-intentioned, but it doesn't seem to be saying anything. At most, it's a tautology. I do hope the article creator doesn't get discouraged by this, though. You're welcome to try again. DS 14:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with a heavy heart. I'm certain that it was written with enthusiasm, and the best of intentions. But I just don't see how it could be saved. Ashenai 14:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DS CLW 14:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn and unencyclopaedic Batmanand 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Cain (professor)[edit]

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. --DrBat 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A thorough Googling reveals some achievements, but nothing beyond the level normally expected of a university professor. Not notable. -- Ashenai 14:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn vanity. Same seems to go for his book's article, An Evocation of Kierkegaard. CLW 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep he seems to be David W Cain, also author of "Freedom: The condition of faith", "Reckoning with Kierkegaard: Christian faith and dramatic literature". Also a book review "Kierkegaard's Relations to Hegel Reconsidered". Authoring 3+ books is good enough for me. Dlyons493 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that getting a book published is remarkably easy, for a college professor. My father is a professor, and has authored several books. I would not consider him notable; nor would I consider Dr. Cain notable unless his books had seen significant circulation outside his own university. This does not appear to be the case. --Ashenai 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as David William Cain appears to be a published author of several religious books over the past three decades. Hall Monitor 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling "David William Cain" gets only 22 results. And apparently there's some other David W Cain who's a lawyer (see http://www.davidwcain.com/).--DrBat 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be, but I was not applying the Google test to his full name. The Amazon bookstore and other sources appear to refer to this author inconsistently as well so those results do not surprise me. Hall Monitor 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable academic. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 23:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well... "Cyrus Farivar" gets 76,000 hits on Google. I'd say that makes Dr. Cain a whole lot less notable. --Ashenai 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing in Google's terms of service which indicate that the web indexing service is intended to be, or functions as a measure of "notability" by any definition other than "gets a lot of Google hits". Certainly notable people have accomplished much without the level of attention the World Wide Web foists upon "American Idol" contestants or "Extended Star Wars Universe" weaponry. Dystopos 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true; because of this, we have to be careful when using Google to "prove" that something or someone is non-notable. However, if something gets, say, 100,000 unique Google hits, that generally means that 100,000 people cared enough about it to put something about it up on the Internet. Whatever our personal opinion of "American Idol" contestants or Star Wars weaponry, it is not for us to decide whether or not they are notable. Google is a good indicator of the amount of public interest in a topic, and enough public interest can make anything notable, regardless of any objective merits it may or may not have. --Ashenai 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in the case of Cyrus Farivar, that his name is attached to articles reprinted from MacWorld, and that his hoax and the reaction to it became newsworthy, and was of particular interest to people who actively discuss things online. None of these phenomena make Farivar more intrinsically notable than Cain, they only create a lot of mentions which are indexed by Google. So, I'm not saying that the public interest failed to make something of Farivar, but the lack of Google-indexed public interest should not detract from the achievements of Cain. Kierkegaard is extremely notable, the study of Kierkegaard is quite notable. Individuals prominent in the study of Kierkagaard are, also, sufficiently notable. I'm going to vote now. Keep. Dystopos 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I must say that I have still not seen proof that Dr. Cain is "prominent in the study of Kierkegaard". His primary claim to fame seems the be that he has written three books; as I have pointed out above, this is in no way remarkable or worthy of note for a university professor, unless it is shown that his books achieved at least some degree of circulation, which does not seem to be the case. Basically, I do not believe every university professor is notable, and I have not seen anything to distinguish Dr. Cain from other professors. --Ashenai 19:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand as per WP:BIO which states "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." are notable enough for articles. With three books published, he probably has achieved this. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, borderline notability... but I think it's safer to keep than to not. gren GuReN6 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable academic, possible vanity. --Angr/_{tOk t@ mi} 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge his book back into this as it's so short. Alf ^melmac 10:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noted scholar.--Nicodemus75 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this person is notable we can merge the book article but still we should not erase something like this Yuckfoo 20:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fan Club[edit]

Self promotion, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. -- Arwel 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn, vanity, nonsense. CLW 15:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio, so tagged. I know, a fan club isn't a person, but the article looks like it's about the person at least as much as the "fan club." Clearly there's no useful content here. Friday (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, and move per Lomn. It was a copy-paste move, and we appear to be happy retaining the redirect. -Splash^talk 23:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soopa_Villianz[edit]

Article has been moved to Soopa_Villainz, the correct spelling of the group and this page is no longer needed 210.170.98.170 15:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in that case we can just do a redirect. DS 15:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect entirely plausible misspelling. Actually, deleting Soopa_Villainz (the correct page) and doing a move would be preferable so as to preserve history for the GDFL. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: unless I'm mistaken, an underscore in an article title is interpreted as a space, so the nominator's statement can't be correct. Keep and insert a ((wrongtitle)). (Unless my wikitech is off, please check me!) — brighterorange (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  comment: the misspelling is referring to the transposition of ai. Based on the article, it looks like the underscore doesn't belong and the nom just copy/pasted from the URL. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy redirect in that case. Thanks for spotting that. — brighterorange (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Intelligence Operation[edit]

Some dude's band. Notability not improved (musically or otherwise) after addition of music notability stub. Smells like vanity as well.

• Delete, non-notable bandcruft. The Hokkaido Crow 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still recording first album? nn CLW 16:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promo/vanity page for non-notable, yet-to-be-discovered band. — Cory Maylett 19:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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