< September 19	September 21 >

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 move to Little Italy, Ottawa which I will do now. Feel free to expand from there as you see fit. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Street (Ottawa)[edit]

nn road Delete --Aranda56 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Move to Little Italy, Ottawa --Aranda56 22:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep of course. This is one of Ottawa's more notable streets, what being the heart of Little Italy and all. It even has an italian alternate name! -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable? What is the difference between this road and the road in front of my apartment? Are the stores in Little Italy notable because they are in Little Italy? Wouldn't an article on 'Little Italy' include everything you can say about 'Preston Street' (or rather, what info is relevant to Preston Street and not to Little Italy)? --maclean25 06:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Earl Andrew. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Little Italy, Ottawa in parallel with the rest of the Little Italies, and rewrite to cover the area instead of one street. — mendel ☎ 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Article claims this is an important street but doesn't say why at that point. Only claim to specific importance is "at the heart of Little Italy", so merge to the not-yet-created article proposed by Mendel, per WP precedent. "Having an [I]talian alternate name" isn't notable by Wtaly, Ottawa]], as above. The area is more notable than the road. - Hahnchen 02:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Earl Andrew. - SimonP 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Earl Andrew and expand. – AxSkov (☏) 05:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Little Italy, Ottawa. Stub on the street, nothing on the area? It would make sense to me in terms of the encyclopedia being useful to others now (as opposed to theoretically useful at some point in the future) to have a combined article on the street and the area, since so littleP standards, as far as I can tell. Barno 00:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Move to Little Italy, Ottawa. Ok, this article is just confusing. Is it describing a road or a place? The stub, the ext.link, and the last sentence all say it is a place. But the category and the first two sentences say it is a street. Near as I can tell from my three minustes of research, this is simply a street. If it is really just a street that goes through Little Italy then why is it not described in an Ottawa Little Italy article? I will change my vote if someone can explain the significance of the street (ie. historic or cultural) so that it could justify its own article without repeating everything that could go into a more comprehensive Little Italy article. --maclean25 00:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a street which informally lends its name to the wider neighbourhood centred on it. Which, to me, suggests that the neighbourhood should have an article (but under its more proper name); the street itself shouldn't. Bearcat 01:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This street is one of Ottawa's more famous streets. There is no reason to delete it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Famous? A street's fame is not defined by being a major street within the city; it's defined by being a street that a person who's never been to the city is still likely to have heard of. Sparks, Sussex and Bank are famous Ottawa streets; there's very little evidence that Preston meets the same criteria. Bearcat 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - [[Little I is currently available. If these get sufficiently large then they can be separated later. Average Earthman 08:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Mendel. -- Last Malthusian 11:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's relevant because it goes through Little Italy, Ottawa, then there should really be an article at Little Italy, Ottawa before this article. And if the street is only notable because it goes through Little Italy, Ottawa, then it should be moved to Little Italy, Ottawa. One more time - Little Italy, Ottawa. Proto t c 12:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an ex-Ottawan, my memory is that the area was more commonly known as "Preston Street", and only rarely as "Little Italy". Perhaps current Ottawans could provide commentary on that. If that is still the case, it makes more sense for the article to be called what Ottawans call the area, rather than imposing a name that other cities use. Ground Zero | t 13:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm a recent Ottawan, I've only been here for five years, and to me, Little Italy's business district is Preston Street, like the Glebe's is Bank and Westboro's is Richmond, but Preston St isn't equivalent to Little Italy. Take St Anthony's, for instance, on Gladstone -- it's part of Little Italy, sure, but part of Preston Street? Even the Preston St. Business Improvement Asssociation calls the area Little Italy. There's so much more to be said about the area than the street anyhow, from the first Italian immigration to Ottawa until the present. You go to a restaurant on Preston, but you live in Little Italy. (The city seems to call the BIA "Preston Street" and the neighbourhood either "Corso Italia" or "Little Italy".) Of course, Little Italy, Ottawa would contain a substantial section on Preston Street, so Preston Street could redirect there. — mendel ☎ 15:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to become a subsection of Little Italy, Ottawa Pete.Hurd 17:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Little Italy, Ottawa. The fact that Preston Street is sometimes, or even frequently, used synonymously to Little Italy should be mentioned in the Little Italy article. There is plenty of information to add to that article related to Preston Street, as a simple google search can attest: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. (BTW: when school articles are put on AfD, those that vote keep often expand the article to demonstrate its significance, notability etc. during the AfD process. I would expect the same level of devotion for road articles; its also a good way to sway a voter towards keeping an article.) I've done some of the nominal work of finding info to add. I'll leave it to others to actually expand the article. Mindmatrix 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and expand to Little Italy, Ottawa. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• How about taking all the Ottawa road articles and put them in Notable roads in Ottawa. Doesint that sound much better?72.49.19.124 22:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Little Italy, Ottawa as per above. Caerwine 10:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to Little Italy, Ottawa. Shauri 19:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 18:23, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was un-deleted on September 30th by User:Earl Andrew [6]. As I feel that there was not a strong enough consensus for deletion, I am upholding the reversal. Please see Talk:Woodroffe Avenue for further discussion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been listed on VfU. I am re-deleting the article pending the outcome of the VfU. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroffe Avenue[edit]

Another non notable Ottawa Road Delete --Aranda56 23:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Extremely important Ottawa road. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Delete nominator. 00:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, oh where to begin? (a) Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. Listing the speed limit on an unidentified part of the road and another speed limit elsewhere, and so on, is an indiscriminate collection of information. (b) The article is a description of a map feature. This does not make for readable or understandable prose. Why create so many substandard articles? A picture of a map would describe it so much better. (c) It is not expandable. This roadcruft only serves fragment a relevent description/discussion of transportation. This kind of material should be placed in an article like, Traffic pattern in Ottawa or Road transportation in Ottawa (or whatever community it is in) or what-have-you. (d) It is not notable. Why glorify a piece of infrastructure? It is just a piece of asphalt on the ground. It contributes to notable things, like a transportation network, but is not notable itself (unless I'm missing something and it is somehow culturally or historically significant). --maclean25 00:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Important for getting from northwest Ottawa to southwest Ottawa but nothing more; nonencyclopedic. — mendel ☎ 00:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; WP:NOT a map. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are forgetting Woodroffe is a MAJOR Ottawa Street, one of the busiest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, major streets are certainly worthy of articles. If we are going to have articles on every single American Dad! epsiode, and every single Pokemon character and not too mention individual articles on all the recent cricket matches, then I think one of the busiest streets in the capital of Canada is important.
        • But I don't agree with having those articles either. Just because we have a bunch of stupid article topics doesn't mean we should just keep making them. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This certainly passes the pokemon test. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why is the road so busy? This is not the busiest road in Ottawa because of some unique feature it has. It is the busiest road because of how the road network is designed. I think you touched on a major flaw in these road articles. A discussion on why and how it became such a busy road would create an interesting and useful article. Instead, Wikipedia editors have chosen to create thousands of short articles on very narrow and very generic topics. How is this road (I mean the actual road itself, aside from its name and geographic place) any different from the other million paved roads on this planet? The road is not busy because of anything it did, it just sat there and traffic happened to it. --maclean25 03:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perfectly verifiable and of interest to readers. - SimonP 02:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of interest to readers? Which readers? I pray to God I never meet any of them in the pub. -- Last Malthusian 12:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no way of judging others, but it is certainly of interest to myself. - SimonP 13:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spinboy et al. Kappa 05:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously, is this just a stretch of tarmac with lots of cars driving up and down it, or is there anything else to be said about this street? If the best we can come up with is speed limits and number of lanes then delete. Average Earthman 08:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just another stretch of tarmac. Mention of speed limits and number of lanes is not encyclopedic and only verifiable by original research. If it has to be kept write an article on Ottawa infrastructure. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The 'unusual features' paragraph makes me drop my monocle in disbelief. I could write a similar article on at least three roads I travel through on my way to work, including their 'unusual features' and discuss the possibility that some of Southampton's roads were designed when an exercise by special needs pupils was mistaken for a road planning document. It wouldn't make them any less non-notable, though. -- Last Malthusian 12:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:maclean25. Pilatus 15:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've explained on recent Toronto street debates, I've always been of the opinion that city streets should only have articles if they have demonstrable historic or cultural significance far beyond their mere existence. Being a busy street doesn't cut it; being a yellow line in the MapArt city atlas doesn't cut it. By my reasoning, Ottawa streets that legitimately deserve articles would include Bank, Laurier, Sparks, Sussex and Wellington. But if going into exhaustive detail on a road's speed limit and how many lanes it has is the only way you can expand a road's article beyond two sentences, then you're dealing with a road that doesn't belong here. In a nutshell, my bottom line criterion for a road article is is this a street that a person who's never been to this city and isn't a map junkie might still conceivably have heard of? For Bank, Sparks or Sussex, the answer to that question is obviously yes, but for Woodroffe, it's no. I have to go with the delete on this one. And it's not Ottawa-bashing, either, because I want the majority of the Toronto street articles sh*tcanned too. Bearcat 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woodroffe is a very historical street for those who live in Nepean. It is, basically Nepean's "Main Street" for North South traffic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not in the least bit historical. Historical means, you know, stuff happening, other than people walking or driving through the damn thing. -- Last Malthusian 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --TimPope 18:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh Dear. So far this week I've seen elementary schools, malls, local courthouses and now streets. This kind of cruft will give us a bad name. Wikipedia is not... WMMartin 21:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If it were up to me, I'd likely delete the whole category of Ottawa roads and others like it. Separate articles for various, non-notable roads in every city in the world is silly. If there's nothing more important to say about a road other than "it's congested" or "the speed limit is this, and it changes to that," it fully meets the criteria of being non-notable. If there's a real story behind a road, something that separates it from millions of other similar roads, fine, it's notable, but a recitation of speed limits and number of lanes is just pedantic trivia. What's next, separate pages for important bus routes in Edmonton or, maybe, articles for each of the busiest sidewalks in Milwaukee? — Cory Maylett 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable G Clark 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for similar reasons to recently deleted Toronto roads. Mindmatrix 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, waste of resource, sub-trivial. Pete.Hurd 04:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn street. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You guys keep saying it's non notable, but how can you say that without knowledge of the city in question? Woodroffe is the main street in Nepean! Wikipedia seems to have articles on every single highway out there, so why can't there be an article on Woodroffe, which is more of a major road than most rural rinky-dink highways that have pages? -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some more comments: I'd also like to say that there are a lot of links to the Woodroffe Article from other pages, and that means there is deffinately a need for the page, and shows that it is certainly a notable road. Plus, I remember we put some Ottawa roads on VfD maybe a year ago, and they were kept. Why the change of heart? We got the go ahead to make articles on Ottawa's major streets, and now there is a turn against it? It's not very fair to the people who make these articles . -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Life isn't fair. Perhaps that disclaimer on the edit page on how your work can be edited without mercy should include a bit on "your work may be deleted without mercy if no-one cares on which street you buy milk". If there are plenty of links to the street, then maybe see if there's any interesting information from those articles that could go in this article, but the simple fact is that it doesn't matter if a billion pages link to it - if there's nothing interesting to say about the street, it's not notable! -- Last Malthusian 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is exactly why notability is not, and will never be, a valid grounds for deletion. - SimonP 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Funny, it's a valid CSD criterion and specifically spelled out as such for certain cases. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Life isn't fair" is not a valid reason why we should delete this page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Main street through town" does not equal "historic significance". "There are notable things on this street" does not equal "cultural significance". Does the street lend its name via metonymy to an entire industry (eg. Bay Street, Wall Street, Broadway?) Is it listed in the Guinness Book of Records for something? Is it so famous that a person who's never even seen a map of the city in their lives might still conceivably have heard of it? Is it closely linked to a major historical event or political controversy? Does it have some unique feature like Syracuse's upside-down traffic light or Lombard Street's switchbacks? Is it on a Monopoly board? (And yes, Canadian Monopoly counts.) Is it the primary ceremonial boulevard (eg. Sussex Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue) in the nation's capital? Have TV shows been named after it? Those are the kinds of questions that define "encyclopedic", not how many lanes it has downtown vs. how many it has in Barrhaven. Bearcat 17:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Sort of. Non-notability is not a valid grounds for deletion. It would be even curiouser indeed if notability were ever a grounds for deletion. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Sam Vimes 17:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should forget if its non notable or not should VFD be any person opinion that if he/she thinks that page should be deleted or not --Aranda56 23:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest creating an article Major Roads in Ottawa, Ontario. Merge with that proposed article, and, at such a time when the information on any individual road is sufficient, create an article devoted to the street. Some roads may never get there, while others will demonstrate their encyclopedic nature through a natural wiki process of expansion. Jkelly 19:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm opposed to deleting this article, I think this idea has merit that is worth exploring. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would much rather see an annotated version of List of Ottawa, Ontario roads, than a hundred separate stubs on each road. However, this particular article isn't all that short and in my view can stand on its own. - SimonP 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. As I keep saying, Woodroffe is a major road in the city. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as several others among us keep saying, being a major road within one city is not a criterion that warrants an encyclopedia article. If you want Woodroffe to be kept, give us good reasons why a person who's never even visited Ottawa in their life might still need to know something about Woodroffe. We're not failing to take Woodroffe's major road status into account; you're failing to take into account that some of us legitimately think being a major city arterial isn't enough. Bearcat 22:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's just the point. There is no reason to delete material, even if it is only of interest to people in Ottawa. Qubit Field Theory is only of interest to those who are experts in quantum mechanics, a much smaller group than the population of Ottawa, but we keep all articles like it. - SimonP 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not an answer to my comment. The number of people directly impacted by a topic is not what defines whether it's encyclopedic or not. Bearcat 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have tons of useless articles on pokemon characters or Star Trek episodes that are more useless than this article on a road. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Exactly. We don't care if people from outside Ottawa have no interest in the article, just as we don't care that non-physicists have no interest in Qubit Field Theory, that non-biologists have no interest in Leucosoleniida, or that non-Star Trek fans have no interest in Corat Damar. - SimonP 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We do, however, care that to all available evidence there's nothing more important to say about this road than how many lanes it has or what its speed limit is. These are not encyclopedic details. Bearcat 23:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Articles on pokemon are certainly not encyclopedic nor worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I agree entirely. However, "that topic is just as out of place here as this one is" isn't a valid reason for inclusion. Come on, guys. You have yet to even attempt to challenge my belief that being a major city arterial doesn't automatically make a street encyclopedia-worthy; you're resorting entirely to distracting tactics that don't address my statement. All I'm asking for is a direct answer (without appealing to the Pokémon argument) as to why a run-of-the-mill city arterial should be important enough to merit an article that tells me nothing more than its speed limit and number of lanes, given that we're already turfing a bunch of Toronto streets of at least equivalent importance to Woodroffe. Bearcat 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Bearcat, what is your opinion on individual highway articles? Woodroffe is busier than most provincial highways. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So are Warden and Broadview, and I voted to can those. I've already gone into some detail earlier in this discussion on what I consider to be some of the key guidelines for determining the encyclopedia relevance of a city street; provincial or state highways are a very different issue, because they're a different thing serving a different purpose, maintained by a higher level of government, marked on larger-scale maps, much smaller in number, much more clearly linked to historical and encyclopedic contexts, etc. Traffic counts are not the determining factor; even a completely unimportant minor street in a major city is probably going to have a traffic count higher than Highway 101. All you've done so far in response to my concerns is to continually repeat that Woodroffe is a major arterial, as if I didn't know that (I lived in Ottawa for six years, for heaven's sake). What I still haven't seen is one good reason why that fact should be important enough to merit an encyclopedia article, one good reason why I should abandon my current criteria for including vs. deleting city streets. Bearcat 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • What I am trying to get at is, Woodroffe Ave. is very similar to a highway in that it connects Barrhaven, (and points beyond) with the rest of the city. It also serves as part of the Transitway. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And what I am trying to get at is that I don't think that's a particularly encyclopedic function which would justify a city street having an article. Bearcat 04:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please remember the context in which these articles are presented. Roads are not Pokémon characters; each Pokémon exists independently of the other and there are actual differences between them (not that I know anything about Pokémon) while all roads are basically identical and exist as a system (network). Why would people in Ottawa want to see an article about this street (I say that while ducking and assuming the article conforms to policies banning business directories, travel guide, indiscriminate collections of info). What can you say about a road that conforms to these policies, is on-topic and will not be repeated a hundred thousand times in other articles. An Ottawan would be better served with an article on the community's road network as a whole. --maclean25 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Information like this is not encyclopedic, it is of no use to anyone. If for some reason someone wanted to know which streets intersect Woodroffe Ave., or when it changes directions, they would consult a map. There are many excellent internet maps available, Wikipedia is not one. -- Corvus 05:02, 26 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. — JIP | Talk 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Gawli[edit]

Being the wife of a politian does not make herself notable and it had been a stub since Jan so I think it wont expand either Delete --Aranda56 00:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I expanded it. My sources are listed on the article's talk page. Chick Bowen 01:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Being the wife of a provincial legislator wouldn't be important enough for a WP article, but I Googled and found this link which indicates coverage of her being arrested on a murder charge. Someone more knowledgeable than I should let us know verifiably whether this got major-media coverage there. (It could just be a smear that a political foe once planted on some little news website, for all I know.) I see Chick B added a sentence but no link on this point to the stub, while I was researching this too. Help please. Barno 01:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • She wasn't actually arrested--a complaint was registered. Your link above, Barno, was one of my sources; the other is listed on the article's talk page. There are other similar items. The only thing I figured out from my googling was that her husband is a former gangster and she's been suspected—but never convicted—of being involved. That doesn't make her all that notable, but notable enough for a stub, I think. If she gets busted for something real we can expand the stub. Chick Bowen 01:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, CB. Based on that, I'm not sure about her facts' importance/verifiability being enough to merit a real bio article, and we're encouraged to make stubs into either real articles or merged sections of a parent article. But I'm on the fence whether this can or should be expanded, so no vote. Barno 01:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, just for the hell of it I looked her up on Lexis/Nexis. She hasn't been in trouble since 2004, but I added some more info and some sources I found there (can't link because it's a subscription service). Chick Bowen 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my view, this is capable of being extended. There are verifiable records of her arrest last year see [7]. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep :

1. Being the wife of a politian does not make herself notable but she is a leader herself. It's all written on the page.
2. it had been a stub since Jan so I think it wont expand either: Is the strangest piece of reasoning I have heard. We may have to delete a substantial chunk of wikipedia if all stubs which are unchanged from January 2005 are removed.
3. Just because a page has not changed since January 2005 does not mean it will not expand in the future. Manik Raina 05:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Arun Gawli. – AxSkov (☏) 05:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 09:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems many articles on notable figures remain in stub holding patterns until arriving at AfD. Hall Monitor 18:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - establishes notability. Guettarda 17:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough for me. Shauri 19:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 18:25, 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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Ottawa Pride Centre[edit]

Non-notable student service at the University of Ottawa. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think these days it's safe to assume that every secular university has a GLBT student group (although I liked it better when they identified as such in the group's name, sigh). — mendel ☎ 02:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ottawa U cruft ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, though salvaging some info and placing it into the University of Ottawa article, possibly under a Notable student clubs or University culture section or some such, should also be considered. Mindmatrix 15:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Streets bordering "Little Italy" districts, and malls "with lots of shops". And now this... Have we reached the point where all notable stuff is covered ? Has Wikipedia reached the point of diminishing returns ? Strong Delete as non-notable. WMMartin 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 23:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with mendel; most universities have one these days and they're not particularly notable as such. I'll go with the delete on this one (though I'd also favour Mindmatrix's proposed merger), with the full disclosure that I wrote the Fulcrum article on its launch back in 1996, and am still occasionally in social contact with the SFUO commissioner who got it up and running. But my social life isn't especially encyclopedic, I have to admit. Bearcat 19:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, this could be merged like what Mindmatrix said. Olorin28 12:17 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and if possible, merge contents with University of Ottawa. Shauri 19:50, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Number 40[edit]

Nothing on allmusic.com, about 1000 Google hits, which isn't all that many. If the article can convincingly establish notability and verifiability, then the nom. will be withdrawn, otherwise delete as NN. Paul 07:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Local band. WP:NOT advert. — RJH 15:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from 9th Sept: needs more participation. -Splash^talk 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for nonnotability. They do look very close judging from some of the google hits, and if The Expedients are notable as this article claims, then they would meet WP:MUSIC. So, I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't think they're notable. Also, this looks like it may be a copyvio from their official site. Tuf-Kat 06:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet sufficiently notable. Article can be re-created in future if appropriate. CLW 07:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC --rob 13:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete present contents per others, and/or redirect to coloring. Add a specific mention in that article about FD&C Red No. 40. "FDA certified over 11.5 million pounds of color additives last fiscal year. Of all those colors straight dye FD&C Red No. 40 is by far the most popular. Manufacturers use this orange-red color in all sorts of gelatins, beverages, dairy products and condiments. FDA certified more than 3 million pounds of the dye in fiscal year 1992--almost a million pounds more than the runner-up, FD&C Yellow No. 5." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Shauri 14:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Olorin28 12:18, 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. Cease upon the Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease Upon the Capital[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet criteria at WP:MUSIC. RADICALBENDER★ 16:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• 0 google hits, delete as failing WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from 9th Sept: needs more participation. -Splash^talk 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Apyule 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for nonnotability. Tuf-Kat 06:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn, poorly written, possibly vanity CLW 07:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Shauri 14:45, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sordid City Blues[edit]

webcomic vanity. Doesn't pass WP:COMIC; alexa rank 700,000+. — brighterorange (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from 9th Sept: needs more participation. -Splash^talk 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Shauri 14:46, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosener[edit]

Delete, what is this supposed to be? Its not a name found in Malta in any case. Maltesedog 19:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need for articles about every single name in the world Sam Vimes 09:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting from 9th Sept: needs more participation. -Splash^talk 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability asserted or established. ♠ DanMS 01:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable. --Apyule 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the only edit credited to the original contributor - they may be called Rosener themselves. nn CLW 07:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic in nature. --Daveb 09:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DittoDannyZz 23:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all above. Shauri 14:47, 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 redirect to Floating rate note · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Floating-rate bond[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted DocendoDiscimus 20:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In June '05 there was already a discussion on this. It survived, tentatively, but... There is no such concept as a 'Floating-rate bond' in the bond markets. Yes, there are bonds that have floating rate coupons, but these are universally known as Floating Rate Notes (I know, just one of those quirks of a the markets). As you'll see there's quite a substantial entry there. My suggestion would be to just have this entry redirect to the FRN entry.

Relisting from 9th Sept: needs more participation. -Splash^talk 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Floating rate note —Wahoofive (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not true that "floating-rate bond" isn't a legit word; if you Google "define:floating-rate bond" or "define:floating rate bond" you'll get definitions from actual investment houses and the U.S. Treasury dept. But there's no reason for a separate article, and "floating rate note" seems to be a wider usage. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Wahoofive. --Apyule 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. IceKarmaॐ 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as per Wahoofive. – AxSkov (☏) 06:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Wahoofive. -- MCB 07:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Wahoofive. - Guettarda 17:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Wahoofive. Shauri 19:51, 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 redirect · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil doers[edit]

I believe this article is not encyclopedic, not helpful, and politically motivated. Ashenai 00:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above. Ashenai 00:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (no merge) to Evil. Note the redirect Evildoers as well.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect both articles to Evil. The article may be useless, but "evil doers" is a potential search term. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: per above. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then create a redirect to Evil. --Apyule 03:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. IceKarmaॐ 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. It is a dictdef. – AxSkov (☏) 06:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you figure that? I would have thought that a definition would be something like "People or other entites who do evil things", not the current stub linking it strongly with George W. Bush and Islamic terrorism. --Apyule 07:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article may link it to Bush, but it remains just a word which he didn't invent. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Marskell 11:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, Bushcruft. --Last Malthusian 12:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect. The word is spelled "evildoer." Chick Bowen 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have many redirects for common misspellings, this is clearly one of them. -- Last Malthusian 10:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirectBrian1979 20:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Evil. Shauri 14:48, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schomburg[edit]

Elaborately puffed vanity bio of a horror writer with two books (from vanity press Authorhouse, ranked #2,655,846 and "none" at Amazon). Gets 468 Google hits -- the top one being this article. Delete. Calton | Talk 00:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From "November 18, 2004: Wikipedia has placed me in their prestige list in their Encyclopedia. It is a true honor to be amongst legends as Stephen King, and Clive Barker." — I guess that means he didn't write it himself? I wonder where the author got all the information from, then. Calton, I think you'll find he is on Amazon for both books, however, he is published only through vanity press so he's still non-notable under WP:FICT. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, I know he's on Amazon, which is why I noted the Amazon sales figures in my original posting. Clear? --Calton | Talk 01:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I thought you were saying you could only find him for the first book. *slaps forehead*. Smile! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero tolerance for vanity, I have. Also, this page is (unintentionally, I imagine) hilarious. Paul 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, nn, oddball CLW 17:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by Calton's research. Shauri 14:49, 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 keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in computer games[edit]

This article is eclipsed by articles such as 2003 in video gaming and similar. Pagrashtak 00:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in agreement with nominator. Parent articles such as Computer games can link to each of the year-in-v-g articles directly without any need for this list, nor for what this list's title could also mean. It's not like the topic were List of years in epic poetry or something like that with thousands of possible list items (years). Barno 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't this be made into something like List of years in television? - SimonP 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Kappa 05:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This could be a useful reference when expanded to include more years and titles. – AxSkov (☏) 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP & AxSkov Anetode 09:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; to be worthy of a keep vote, this should be massively expanded. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza}]] 10:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and give it time to expand. Good idea. Sam Vimes 12:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could possibly grow into something worthwile, but right now - at least in my opinion - it is a pretty worthless article that doesn't add anything of value. Everything listed could be said in the individual articles for the games mentioned. Part of the problem is that unlike List of years in television, this list has no historical context; just a few games that may or may not be of any significance in 10 years. Where is Pong or Space Invaders or Counterstrike? What about Atari 2600 or Nintendo Entertainment System? I'll give it a couple of days to see if someone wants to pick this up and expand it, otherwise I'll vote delete.--Isotope23 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now in the article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of articles hang around for months before someone takes them under their wing. List of publications in philosophy sat around for over a year before it became at all interesting. But now, its at least somewhat complete. Why are we in such a hurry to delete an article that we agree has potential? Who's it hurting by being incomplete? Just put the ((expand list)) template on it, and leave it alone. Trust the wiki... --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I enjoyed the article and the links!DannyZz 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 19:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like in 90s there was nothing interesting in the world of computer gaming at all. Crazy. Surely Quake was more groundbreaking than CS.  Grue  17:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This at least has real potential to develop.--Pharos 06:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP & AxSkov
• Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 18:25, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris P. Boucher[edit]

Author, who wrote the page himself, has only one book published, and that by a vanity press. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Not notable/encyclopedic.--Jondel 01:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete vanity press is not "publication" in the sense that there are no standards. Vanity page. — brighterorange (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• it's a shame such a bias against self-published work exists in the information age, on a wiki of all places! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris@chrisboucher.com (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 September 2005
  • On a wiki of all places, you have to be discriminate about what kind of information you include lest it become an overgrown repository of random information that doesn't mean anything. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Boucher, anyone can be published by vanity press. I could get a book published tomorrow, that doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about myself! (Well, I couldn't actually, because I haven't got any money. But the theory holds.) In order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate repository of information, we have to have certain standards about what we include and what we don't. Sure, those standards aren't perfect, but they're all we've got, and they don't include authors whose only works, regardless of their merit, are published by vanity presses. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• the inspiration for this page is not vanity but accuracy' -- this Wiki incorrectly attributed the novel to a British writer twice— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris@chrisboucher.com (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 September 2005
  • Fair point, and thank you for clearing that up on the Chris Boucher article. "Vanity" is a confusing term — it doesn't mean an article's author created it out of vanity (though I admit that's what I thought you'd done), but that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be written about in an encyclopaedia that takes itself seriously. By the way, you may have noticed that the other people contributing to the discussion here have all signed their entries (click the "sign" icon in the toolbar, or type four tildes). Part of the signature is a link to each user's user page, on which they can put whatever they want, including biographical details. I encourage you to move the contents of the Chris P. Boucher article to your own userspace. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; vanity. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 01:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That's fine. But I'll no longer have a user page, as I have no interest in belonging to your narrow-minded group. Luckily as a non-member I can still edit pages. I'll restrict my use of this "Wikipedia" to occasionally visiting the Chris Boucher page and deleting the attribution of my novel to another writer. You can all rest easy now that you've deflected another assault on your "serious" standards! Thanks, Chris Boucher
  • Cry more noob. I'm very sorry to hear that. :'( ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 02:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the page has no content now. Chris P. Boucher does make a fair comment about the other Boucher being erroneously credited with his books, so I will add a little note to this effect to the existing article for now. 23skidoo 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Would speedy delete, blanked by author, work here now? I am eager to enforce my fascistic, narrow world-view in the name of the Wikipedia cabal (there is no cabal) as quickly as possible, after all, Also, if speedy isn't an option, delete as non-notable vanity. Lord Bob 03:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject of this vanity page blanked it already. jni 05:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page and not encyclopaedic. I would have said "userfy" but Mr Boucher has said that he does not want a user page or be part of the wikipedia community. – AxSkov (☏) 06:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe in including all authors with published books, but that doesn't include vanity press or "self-published" works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is not blanked as far as I can see. Still nn though, and the fact that the author of the article is the article's subject, and he just declared that he is only on WP to maintain his article, just screams vanity. --Last Malthusian 12:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. It was indeed blanked by the author, but the blanking was reverted. IMO it should have been empty tagged instead of reverted at that point. Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The book and the book's subject are more noteworthy than the author.DannyZz 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Shauri 14:51, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westcor[edit]

Looks Promotional I want this article to go to VFD to make sure. Weak Delete for now but willing to change vote --Aranda56 01:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit gushing, but it seems to be a notable company. - SimonP 02:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep non-promotional, just needs some improvement Anetode 09:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ownership of these types of assets routinely change. It's not a history of a development company which might be encyclopedic. Macerich would be more worthy subject.DannyZz 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company has been around for 40 years. If kept, the article probably needs to be renamed. There are many companies that include Westcor in their name and are frequently known as Westcor. This page should become a DAB. Vegaswikian 05:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & move as per User:Vegaswikian. Guettarda 17:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:26, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert Series Story[edit]

Original research. Most details are completly made up and are assumtions by fans. It never appears in the game or in published information by the game creator. Jareand 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page has some very interesting things indeed to say about the origins of this page. It's not the worst fanfic I've ever read, but it's still fanfic, and Wikipedia is not fanfiction.net. Delete. Lord Bob 03:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fanfic Brian1979 21:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep. Currently the page is original research, and as such all the assertions should be removed. However, if they were, there was a story to the games, and it may be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Hence, my condition is that someone spends a lot of time non-original-researching it. If no-one is willing to do this, or someone can convince me that the story is nn, I will change to delete. Batmanand 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The base story is what it is described in the game. The make up part is to "fill the gap". May switch to deleteSYSS Mouse 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. Yes I agree, but the stuff used to fill the gap in the article is completley fanfic (and some of it contradicts the game and info from the game developers, if I may add), it's based on nothing from the game. For example, here is a good story about the same game. In it the author bases the gap filler on actual stuff in the game. Nothing is completely made up. Jareand 19:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup, alot of research and effort has been put into writing this article (which is more than I can say of rampant deletionists on here) therefore I vote to keep it with the expectation that it will continue to be reworked. Piecraft 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes it does. Large sections of the text are original research, and as fan fiction,

also inherently unverifiable. --Icelight 05:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fan fiction. Without prejudice though, so if an entirely new article that isn't based on filling in gaps to create a complete story, but rather chronologues the events as they happen in game, is written it can take this article's place. --Icelight 05:51, 26 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercut (band)[edit]

Does not assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 02:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 03:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Shauri 15:02, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Prakash[edit]

Non-notable, likely vanity; 82 Google results. Note:When voting or reviewing the page, please take a look at SLYNUX; it was created by the same IP address and I felt this was borderline deletion-worthy but only stubbed it, so I leave it to you to decide whether it should be placed on afd. (Yes, you.) Paul 03:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity. Tintin 03:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Daveb 09:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost an A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-direct to SLYNUX if that article isn't already deleted first. I suggest that regardless of whether it is deleted or not, the re-direct be done, *if* the target still exists. --rob 07:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. Usrnme h8er 07:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The article contains nothing except exactly the sort of "unrealized aspirations, thoughts, and hobbies" that Wikipedia:Vanity discusses. There are no cited sources and no evidence that this person satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. Shauri 19:54, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy bibble[edit]

Article about a non-notable web comic that was started June 24, 2005-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense, non-notable Paul 03:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 06:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Flush this pointer to a load of blasphemous junk down the flushatory Anthony Appleyard 08:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Stezton 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (Leave a redirect to Holy Bible as a potential typo?)Proto t c 12:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable. (And the information in the article is untrue, because the comic is NOT funny.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with redirect as Proto suggested. Shauri 19:59, 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 keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Michahelles[edit]

Good Article but it is a nn puppetier Delete sry Keep with expansion Before it just showed she was only a puppetier in some festival but now it was expanded --Aranda56 03:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author: Thanks for the compliment "Good Article." I do have additional material I will add which will perhaps better establish her place in the community of her peers... I'm curious: What does a puppeteer have to do to be notable? Do give me a day or two, okay? Kind regards.  :-) paul klenk 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Have added her off-Broadway work; her association with the (Jim) Henson Festival; her work commissioned by the Sci-Fi channel; her credits as an instructor in her field; and more about her work in Italy. Photo GFDL license requests are pending from the National Geographic Society, which has featured her work. Will contact nominator Aranda56 to see if this merits removal from the deletion log. My apologies for not getting more of this material in earlier -- and "thanks" to my fellow editor for pushing me to get off my butt and get some real work done!!!! paul klenk

• Keep. Good article by user Paul Klenk and the subject is notable enough for mine given association with the Henson Festival, New York's Village Halloween Parade and the Sci-Fi Festival. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability is sufficiently asserted in my opinion --Camw 06:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Camw. --Apyule 07:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep expanded version. Now shows enough notability to justify inclusion. Barno 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been expanded. Hall Monitor 19:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see nothing wrong with this article. Shauri 20:03, 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 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) 21:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psycophant[edit]

Non-notable neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Titoxd 04:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (no merge) to Sycophant as likely misspelling —Wahoofive (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Wahoofive. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - presumably a neologism (certainly isn't a psychiatric term I know of). --Daveb 09:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - dicdef at best. A mere 107 hits on Google also hints this is either non-notable or a typo. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect Rich Farmbrough 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DannyZz 23:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to sycophant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Olorin28 12:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. Shauri 20:04, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azlind[edit]

Tagged for speedy, not a candidate. Abstain. -Splash^talk 04:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any such language, and besides, this would be a Wiktionary article at best. IceKarmaॐ 05:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably a personal attack, I wouldn't mind if someone speedied it. Kappa 05:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if true, delete if not. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable, almost certain hoax. Could it be a CSD under G1 or A1? --Apyule 07:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Unverified. Delete, possible candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page or as a hoax. - Mike Rosoft 13:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No such language, so speedied as nonsense. CLW 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't make it patent nonsense. Sorry. -Splash^talk 16:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No debate needed in my mind Brian1979 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are not speedy deletion criterion, for good reasons. The risk of false positives is too high. No vote on this article. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no purpose. DannyZz 23:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete huh? Shauri 20:05, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plutolaan[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "google search turns up no hits in English, no pages link to this page and this page appears to be non-sense". Google hits would suggest something by this name is real, so perhaps it is a place. I nearly deleted this because it's just such an awful mess, and any future article could not possibly start here. Abstain. -Splash^talk 04:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. IceKarmaॐ 04:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Googling for English only results seem to indicate that this is International student housing. Not notable. --Camw 06:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — as far as I can tell it's a street name, presumably (from the talk of beer) one with a lot of students. That's the Nederlands version, anyway, but that's where the authors claim it is. "Plutolaan" gets hits in Finnish, too, but I don't know what it's meant to be there ... either way, we're better off deleting the article and, if something worthwhile is to be said about it, it can be written under that name later. As it stands it's a joke article. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Search in http://www.altavista.com for "Plutolaan" get 261 results, many in Dutch, many for a street in Groningen. Anthony Appleyard 09:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That may be true, Anthony, but I can't see anything salvagable here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no valuable information in the present form. Tracyt1800 13:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion for lacking meaningful content or context. - Mike Rosoft 13:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied as nonsense CLW 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Much like the other article, this does not fit the very narrow definition of patent nonsense. A second admin has now removed the speedy tag from this article. -Splash^talk 17:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete smells like a hoax with the alcohol references WCFrancis 01:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Shauri 20:06, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted David[edit]

Article reads like Ted's résumé combined with an advertisement. If someone can fix it then keep it, otherwise, delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio from his CNBC page complete with email address at the bottom.It has been reported. Would vote to keep a legitimate article though. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs rewording and sourcing to remove copyvio. – AxSkov (☏) 06:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even though a non-copyvio version is needed. And I see that the temp page that was just added also contains the copyvio material. ErikNY 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs cleanup not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 18:29, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rape shower[edit]

Tagged as "patent nonsense", but doesn't fit the definition we have. Abstain. -Splash^talk 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to wikionary, seems like a real expression from the google hits. Kappa 05:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. It seems like a dictdef, but it is definitely not encyclopaedic. – AxSkov (☏) 06:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete. WP:NOT a dictionary, phrasebook, or slang reference. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense. I oppose transwiki, or any use of this. Not every two word combination is worthy of an article in wiktionary. 255 unique hits for the exact term in google doesn't make something a real term. I suspect any combination of the word "rape" with another common word, will bring up plenty of similiar "hits" in Google. The word "rape" is (sadly) one of the many words some porno sites "stuff" in their keywords, to get hits. There are 255 web sites hoping to get customers looking for this, but that doesn't mean it's a real term (or expression). Without even opening the sites (which I'm not about to do), you can see from the Google snippets, that there are random words packed in for SEO reasons, which don't even form sentences. A term must be used regularly in proper sentences before it can even rise to the level of a "dicdef". --rob 10:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also possible that those 255 are using the same googlebait block. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without transwiking. I don't see any evidence that this phrase is actually used by anyone, and some coincidental hits on Google fail to demonstrate any use or notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without transwiki; the hits from a google search do not provide evidence that this phrase is in significant use and/or notable for the reasons given above. Sliggy 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: try googling "a rape shower". Kappa 12:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did just now, and I see between a dozen and two dozen uses of the term non-randomly in context. That really amounts to very little. Also, we don't include ever properly used adjective/noun pair, so why would we we have a rarely used slang term (which uses a verb as an adjective). Is there a hot shower, fast shower, slow shower, quick shower, bad shower, good shower, etc... Now a few like "cold shower", might have such massive/widespread usage, that they're included as special cases. But, that takes an extra degree of usage. I assert such a term requires *more* than what would be required if we're talking of a single real word. In fact, a real word, requires no Google hits. Dictionaries are not there to provide every combination of words one might use. It's there to provide a list of words, and definitions, which users may combine themselves. Let's hope the good folks at wiktionary don't send this sucker back as "not a dicdef transwiki to wikipedia ". --rob 13:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My google got 14 hits after excluding the very similar hits, a porn ad, ambiguous usage (e.g. is sitting in the shower crying the same thing?), and where the term had to be immediately explained on a web chat forum (i.e. it was not generally known). Is that in line with your findings? Sliggy 13:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't get many google hits, but it does get some, enough to indicate it might be in active use, so it should be given to wiktionary to let them decide if it meets their criteria or not. Dictionaries need to provide definitions of idioms, where a two-word combination does not mean the sum of its parts. The meaning of "rape shower" is non-obvious, unlike "quick shower" etc. Kappa 13:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying to simply make a mention of the term to people in wiktionary, or are you talking about going ahead and actually creating a dicdef entry in wiktionary. An actual dicdef should only be made *after* the term is verified. It's wrong to create something, with the intent of sparking a discussion on it. So, maybe, I'm not clear on what you propose. --rob 14:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • When things are moved to wikitionary, they go into a separate transwiki namespace, where wiktionarians can examine them at leisure. Kappa 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shocked to discover I actually agree with Kappa one this one. If Transwiki let's the wiktionarians decide what to do, let them do it. It's certainly non-obvious ( well, to me, anyway ). WMMartin 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable term. Ashenai 12:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-notable term. Delete, do not transwiki. - Mike Rosoft 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no transwiki, per Thivierr. Barno 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without moving to Wiktionary. NatusRoma 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Molotov (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it is used as the article suggests, I vote to delete it from english usage too. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without transwiki.Vizjim 22:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term's time has not yet come to be in an encyclpedia. DannyZz 23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dicdef and possibly neologism. --MacRusgail 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MacRusgail. Shauri 20:08, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greatestsale.com[edit]

Delete More advertising (WP:NOT) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retail website. -- unsigned comment from 67.184.59.161

• Delete, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Drini CLW 12:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DriniDannyZz 23:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ad. Shauri 20:09, 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 Speedied. android79 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fraser Zaleznik[edit]

Tedious NN vanity The curate's egg 06:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. No need to go through AfD. -- MCB 07:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, probably an attack page (the Britney Spears bit). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD. I marked it too. --Apyule 07:46, 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.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- but because the split was between deleting outright and merging, I will make a redirect. Anybody feeling there is content in the article as it stands that should be merged, go for it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Songs[edit]

Article is unencyclopedic as well as poorly written. Title is neither an official term nor a common fan term. Content is redundant because of listings in the Legend of Zelda series songs page. I had originally moved this page and changed the content into a redirect upon creation of that one, but the sole author replaced the text at this name and put links to it in the other page. WikidSmaht (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if it's all redundant and the title is not even a fan term, then there's not much point in keeping it around. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Legend of Zelda series songs, kindly explain to author that its either a small segment of an article or something to be deleted. Anetode 09:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two problems with merging: A) All the information( except the unencyclopedic speculation regarding TP) is already in the appropriate article in some form. B) The term "Warp Songs" is the author's term. It's not official and it's not a popular fan term. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ··gracefool |☺ 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparent neologism. Paul August ☎ 00:26, 30 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: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Time[edit]

Article is unencyclopedic as well as poorly written, refers to a small part of a couple of video games, and content is redundant because of listing in the Legend of Zelda series songs page. I had originally changed this page into a redirect upon creation of that one, but the sole author reverted it and put a link to it in the other page. WikidSmaht (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Convert all opposition through the Power of Reason. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per fuddle Anetode 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Your puny Power of Reason falls to the superior firepower of my armored cavalry. Merge and redirect this redundant gamecruft per WP:FICT and nominator. Barno 15:42, 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: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epona's Song[edit]

Article is unencyclopedic as well as poorly written, refers to a small part of a couple of video games, and content is redundant because of listing in the Legend of Zelda series songs page. I had originally changed this page into a redirect upon creation of that one, but the sole author reverted it and put a link to it in the other page. WikidSmaht (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. Steve Casburn 07:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep recurring song. Kappa 07:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything that's not redundant, then redirect. If the author doesn't like it, revert him once, then if he keeps warring over it, head for the talk page and deploy the Ultimate Weapon: reason. (Och, it sounds so easy, doesn't it? "Just use reason!") --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per mark Anetode 10:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Disputed merges aren't an AFD thing; just talk about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There's not much to dispute. Just explain our practices to the author, and consider this as a consensus to merge. Sonic Mew | talk to me 12:36, 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.

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 15:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H. Gardner Rowley II[edit]

NN - This is not an article for an encylopaedia and seems to be a rant about misinformation on someone else's website. The curate's egg 07:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. Steve Casburn 07:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopaedic attack page. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD. I marked it as such. --Apyule 07:50, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Murray[edit]

Subject not important enough to keep Steve Casburn 07:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the comments below, I will remove the AfD tag I proposed, and clean up the article. Thanks for the productive disagreement! Steve Casburn 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article, but have not removed the AfD tag because I'm not sure that should be done before the process has finished. Steve Casburn 05:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, his book came out in 1978 and has been republished, and the amazon reviews make it sound pretty notable. [8]. Kappa 07:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - Looks like the novel was popular enough to have a movie based on it [9]. Book has 21 customer reviews on Amazon.com and a sales ranking of #38,061 on Amazon.com yesterday and a ranking of #11,411 on Amazon.co.uk --Camw 07:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep author of a book that's been published through a legitimate press. Seems a pretty important book, too, as these things go (per Camw). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:BIO as author with sales of 5,000 or more in addition to the movie being made about his book. There is also a Hong Kong businessman of the same name who is group managing director of Hutchinson Whampoa according to Maquis Who's Who and the businessman is probably notable enough for an article as well. Capitalistroadster 08:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep published author of a non-vanity-press book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:BIO this author is notable enough for inclusion. Hall Monitor 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Murray is a notable figure, having hosted documentaries about the Legion as written a book. Many British legionaries joined following his writings. GABaker 20:38 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep he may not be the most famous author out there but he's more than just an author. Having said that, his book did well in 1978 and in a recent reprint, plus he was second in command at Jardine Matheson (one of the largest Hong Kong trading firms), and, though it's not mentioned in the article, in December/January 2003/04 he became the oldest man to walk unaided to the South Pole with Pen Hadow. He was also awarded the CBE. (There's a lot of people listed in Wikipedia who are less important than he).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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) 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Fashioning a Kayak Out of a Log[edit]

A very minor character in Wayne's World 2 doesn't deserve a mention in an encyclopedia. ZJP 07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but I wouldn't complain about a redirect to Wayne's World 2 either. --Apyule 08:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I would complain about a redirect. Leaving it around serves no purpose. Who is going to come go Wikipedia and do a search for "old man fashioning a kayak out of a log"? That's the only purpose such a redirect could serve. Following that logic, we would need endless disambiguation pages listing "guys singing in a car" or "girl and guy making out", or "bear rummaging in campsite garbage," all of which describing the scenes of movies in which they occur and redirecting users to their corresponding movies. My head would explode. I would have to fashion a new one out of a log. paul klenk 08:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense, painful to read. Anetode 10:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what the hell... one funny gag, but doesn't need an encyclopedia article Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no one would search for such a minor character and if they did, they should be looking for Wayne's World 2 anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Mgm - CLW 15:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fashioning a delete vote out of a log, but no wooden redirect is called for. Barno 20:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no redirect needed. Unlink the listing at Wayne's World 2 to avoid having a redlink. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mgm. Shauri 20:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and/or redirect. ··gracefool |☺ 18:31, 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: Userfied (moved to User:Admorphit) per creator's request. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AD-MorphIT[edit]

nn-bio (vanity by author) for an online alias. Asserts "works" and "portfolio", so technically not speediable, benefit of the doubt. MCB 07:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. What is nn-bio and what do you mean when you say technically not speediable? Admorphit 20 September 2005

• nn-bio vanity means biographical article written by the subject him/herself (against the guidelines of Wikipedia), who is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The article is technically not speediable in that it narrowly fails to qualify for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. It is, however, a perfect candidate for this page, where it is likely than many people will vote eitherdelete or userfy (i.e., moving the article to a subpage of the writer's user page). My vote is userfy - this looks like material for your user page, not for article space. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The user is presumably monitoring this discussion, and can create his/her own user page if so desired. CLW 08:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Welcome to Wikipedia, Admorphit. You are welcome to post stuff on your userpage. However, as far as we can tell, this information is not of sufficient general interest to warrant an encyclopedia article. Userfy is the best option but if user Admorphit doesn't want it on his user page delete. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first day using Wikipedia, so all this is very new to me. Sorry for any misunderstanding I may have caused the community due to my actions. My initial assumption was that pages could be created under the encyclopedia under any topic at all, but didn't even know about the user space until recently. Now that I know about it, I'd rather make it a user space too. How do I go about doing this? Do I leave it to the admins or must I do something on my behalf? Thanks for the support, much appreciated. Admorphit

• Notice that your user name is a hyperlink. Click on it, and take it from there. TheMadBaron 13:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have moved the page to User:Admorphit. The redirect can be deleted now. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 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.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Sorry, but all the comments are divergent. Any editor can still carry out their preference, of course. -Splash^talk 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UTF-9 and UTF-18[edit]

No reason to confuse our readers with first of april jokes. See April 1st RFC. Delete, no redirect. --Pjacobi 08:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to April 1st RFC to stop it being recreated. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment whilst these are unlikely to gain wide use they are perfectly workable transformation formats for such systems. Plugwash 15:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the creator of this article. I saw that the RFC was created on an April 1, but it wasn't clear to me that it was one of the April 1st RFCs released for humorous purposes. It seems to be a legitimate Unicode encoding for nontet-based systems. If I'm wrong, then I agree that it can be redirected to April 1st RFC, but otherwise, there's no harm in keeping it as-is. —Psychonaut 15:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't contain the care that the other UTFs do, supporting only the 4 planes that are currently in use (as is done in UTF-18) seems like something that no serious unicode implementer would ever accept and could have easilly been worked arround by allowing UTF-16 surrogates for those ranges. UTF-9 isn't exactly well designed either as it does not allow simple searching to be used safely.
    Sure this isn't as outlandish as mplamps but i still don't think its serious.
    P.S. are entries covering multiple pages allowed on AFD or do we have to keep writing in duplicate? Plugwash 16:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it makes sense to discuss two or more articles together, then by all means list them together - if discussion of the two articles diverges, it's easier to split the discussion than it is to merge it. (Having said that, this should serve as a cautionary tale...) sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok i've merged the discussions (which up until now were duplicates anyway).
• Merge UTF-9 and UTF-16 into a single article describing the encoding methods and pointing out thier flaws. Plugwash 14:50, 27 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--Doc (?) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Innis.[edit]

There is another page about him: Harold Innis, which already includes all the information that is in the Harold Innis. page. JoanneB 08:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. paul klenk 09:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incorrectly titled duplicate. Not a common misspelling, so no redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Olorin28 12:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Shauri 20:11, 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--Doc (?) 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-chezia[edit]

Suffix dictdef without encyclopedic potential. Should be transwikied before deletion, unless someone can say for sure that it's incorrect. It's hard to find attestations for word fragments, so I can't confirm it myself. —Cryptic (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Don't bother transwiking. Wiktionary is not a garbage dump. Loss of one sentence is hardly, a great loss. We shouldn't fill up a dictinary with every supposed word (or suffix) that can't be proven to be non-existent. I don't object to somebody looking into to its existent further, if they wish, but the default assumption should be that nothing needs to be done with this one-line article. --rob 11:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur; delete, do not transwiki unless somebody manages to verify this information. - Mike Rosoft 13:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no OED entry Chick Bowen 20:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef. No need to transwiki imho. Shauri 20:16, 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 KEEP--Doc (?) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLYNUX[edit]

Advertising (and poorly-written advertising at that...) - Delete. CLW 10:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seems to be a valid linux distro, garners 136,000 (ok, 134 actual) google hits. Just needs some serious cleaning. Anetode 10:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are only 134 uniques in Google. The "136,000" number means nothing (even though Google does show it). --rob 11:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, technically it means that somewhere out there are about 135866 pages that replicate those 134, which means something in and of itself. Not arguing about its notability, though, just the 'Google not showing nothing' thing. :) Anetode 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you're sort-of right, and sort-of wrong. The real problem, is some web servers have an infinite namespace. Meaning, that every time Google requests a path from a domain, it gets a "valid" response, and content is returned (but it's the same page, over and over). There's no duplication whatsoever on the original web site, but Google "counts" each and every url, which produces the same result. Depending on how a site makes it's links this can produce absurd hit counts. It's like a teacher taking attendance, and every time the teacher calls a name, the same kid yells "present", no matter what name is called. As well, Google will even count urls it never even *attempted* to fetch, simply because there was a link to them, and the linking text had the magical keyword. These snippet-free url's literally don't exist, but do get counted. In fact, here's what's funny, domains with non-existent/invalid TLDs get counted (probably not in this case) --rob 12:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again, Google never displays more than 1000 results, and the 134 unique ones are sorted out of the 1000. For example, a search for sjgames (Steve Jackson Games) finds 134 unique hits (of 450.000), and a search for mistress finds 885 (out of 11.200.000). If you don't believe me, find me a keyword which receives more than 1000 unique hits. - Mike Rosoft 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, your twisting things. The first thousand, contains URLs from the same web sites, as those past the first thousand. The sites near the end tend to be the non-unique ones (redundant with earlier one). So, if the hit count is well below one thousand, it's likely those past the 1000-point were just redundant; and your distinction is a meaningless point, not to be worried about. Now, if it gets close to the 1000-mark (say 900+), then sure, there could well be more than a 1000 real hits. Also, you ignore, that Google counts as hits, URLs that are invalid, and that it never even *tried* to fetch. The snippet-free listings, tend to be at the end, and would presumabley be in the post-1000 group. Anything past the last verified, unique hit in Google's results, is pure speculation. No approach will find all web pages, since Google doesn't even get all web pages. The purpose of a Google test is to get a *verified* count. The fact the actual count could be higher, is always true, and pointless to mention. I've seen a case, where over 1,000,000 hits came from a *single* domain, which shows how worthless the non-unique hit count is. --rob 06:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per comment by Rob. Usrnme h8er 11:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't nominate it because I wasn't sure if linux distros automatically warranted an article, but that not being the case, ditch it...I got 126 "real" google results (makes it much easier when you go 100 results per page)...the 100,000+ result is just repetition it seems Paul 13:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just counting search result totals is not enough. It is important to read the pages that the search finds. Moreover, whilst Linux distributions do not automatically warrant an article, the WP:CORP guidelines for commercial products can be reasonably employed to determine whether a distribution meets the notability criteria as if it were a commercial product. Furthermore, the notability litmus test for software that I outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) is whether people, independent of the author, have written non-trivial works of their own that focus upon the software in question.

  Actually reading the pages that the search finds, I find independently written news coverage of this distribution in three separate news publications, including one of India's national newspapers. This satisfies both the WP:CORP criteria for a product and the software notability criterion that I outlined. Keep. Uncle G 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, obviously, one has to do more than count results. Of the stories linked to, just 2 are English. Both of these are "independent" but, in reading them, it's fairly clear no analysis was done, and the author merely reported what they were told on technical matters. So, these articles were trivial. Given that the size of the enterprise isn't what garners notability, I think what we need to find, is if this distro is a substiantially different and unique product. If SLYNUX is one of group, of barely differnt distros, it's not worthy of a topic. If it's Windows-like interface is special, and noted, that may make it unique (though it's hardly the first to make such a claim). The issue with GNU license is, is one can take another's GNU Linux distro, make small changes, and call it your own. Not all of these warrant articles, since not all are truly unique entitities. So, I'm still on the fence. --rob 18:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• To counter the bogus argument from unique Google hits, weak keep. - Mike Rosoft 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously, the original hit count in Google was wildly silly and absurd. But, I'm going to make my decision based on something different from that, and different from the technical signifance of the product (which isn't supported). I think there's a human interest story, which was covered, and is probably notable, at least in India. If the same thing was made by a 30-year old from Silicon Valley, it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. Also, I think as articles related to this are created and put up on AFD, they can quickly be re-directed to this one point (e.g. Kishore Prakash (AFD), MarileSoft (speedied), and Sarath Lakshman (no attempt yet)). --rob 07:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:32, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Interest[edit]

nn website with no aleca rating - is this of interest even in Australia? --Doc (?) 10:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I suspect this is vanity, as it was created by 144.136.77.108, whose edits mostly relate to this article and to Linda Weiss, a co-founder of the site. These two articles were possibly created in order to direct traffic to The Australian Interest. Weiss herself is a professor, but not sure how notable, so her own entry may also need nominating for deletion as vanity. CLW 12:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable Australian web site at present--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. --Apyule 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Ambi 06:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Shauri 20:16, 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 extreme lesbian DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W00w00[edit]

Either rewrite to actually be an article, instead of a collection of nonsense and templates, or delete. Tom- 11:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme lesbian delete. *cough*. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the organisation is real, but it's probably some kind of joke organisation and not notable enough for Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 11:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. And not funny, either. CLW 11:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual, polyamorous, monoamorous, furry, fetishistic etc etc etc delete (just besting MarkGallagher) erm ... so badly written it should just be wiped! --TimPope 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is ridiculous, useless and IMO vanityBrian1979 21:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. Shauri 20:18, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CentralanUK[edit]

Not notable gaming event, 50 players. feydey 11:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per A Man In Black. CLW 11:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- sounds like an ad. Stezton 12:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Contributions[reply]
• Delete for all reasons above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• CentraLAN UK Statement

Hi, I'm Murray-Mint, Network Administrator at CLUK. Just to add my point of view. The article was added to Wikipedia by some of our attendees as a nice gesture towards us. Although it is nice to think we have our own Wikipedia entry, in all honesty, it's not needed. Wikipedia is not for advertising and we already have a link on the LAN Party page. Verdict: Delete

This vote was added by the anonymous User:81.19.57.138. - 195.113.31.73 15:00, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panoxyl[edit]

I've tried tagging it as a medical stub (which apparently doesn't work the way I tried). I'm listing this in the hope of getting some clear community opinions about whether this is a overly general dicdef or not, so please don't flame me for it. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's just one of many brands, which use the same medicinal ingredient, benzoyl peroxide, which already has an article. So, I don't see anything special. I wouldn't call this a dicdef, but it's just not notable. I wouldn't do a a re-direct, since it's got other ingredients, and isn't literally the same thing; I suppose they can always change what they put in it. --rob 14:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I would redirect as the other ingredients are coincidental to this product. The delivery medium can be an aqueous gel, an aqueous alcoholic basis, detergent wash etc., with 2.5-10% benzoyl peroxide, but the active ingredient remains the same and Stiefel's brand name is retained in all cases (which, "correctly" capitalised, is PanOxyl) (source: British National Formulary). Sliggy 15:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

(that's redirect to benzoyl peroxide, just to be explicit) Sliggy 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • rob's link below shows that Stiefel sells a (presumably over-the-counter) product under the PanOxyl brand that does not have benzoyl peroxide as the active ingredient. So my vote is now delete; thanks for the information. Sliggy 16:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redir Rich Farmbrough
• Delete only, I hate ambiguous redirects. -- Kjkolb 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect if and only if the target is the sole active ingredient (not necessarily the sole ingredient, which is rarely the case) as meant in the pharmaceutical industry. -- MCB 00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: According to this this "Clear Acting Cleaning Gel" (one of six formulations of Panoxyl) has salicylic acid and triclosan, but no benzoyl peroxide. --rob 03:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. That makes redirection problematic, so then delete. MCB 19:39, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicist Theory of Evolution[edit]

Original research related to Unicist anthropology (AfD). Delete. jni 11:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - essentially one person's theory. --Pjacobi 12:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research AND patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 12:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOR - it certainly quacks like a duck - --Outlander 13:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• And if it ducks like a quack ... Original research - delete this article as well as all the related ones. - Mike Rosoft 13:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --JPotter 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, part of a systematic effort to use Wikipedia to spread heretofore nonexistent theories. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ... but I feel strangely compelled to use the phrase To ordinary people... to start a sentence in my next grant application... Pete.Hurd 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparrently there's a book, but still: Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there's an Ebook, but no published work I could find - --Outlander 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable crackpot theory — Cory Maylett 22:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR --Apyule 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Shauri 20:29, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Belohlavek[edit]

Vanity. His major contributions to society Unicist anthropology and Unicist Theory of Evolution are also on VFD above. Dunc|☺ 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unicist deletion for this incoherent self-promotion page. jni 14:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity CLW 14:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - along with all of his other vanities ---Outlander 17:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, part of a systematic effort to use Wikipedia to spread heretofore nonexistent theories. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nutbar Pete.Hurd 17:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vanity abakharev 04:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Shauri 20:33, 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 Speedied. android79 15:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharonie[edit]

Some kind of bad sci-fi-ish nonsense (alien from Mars that sexes it up with Venusians). Delete as no original ramblings. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nonsense. — brighterorange (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as nonsense CLW 14:48, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETED by WP:CP. -Splash^talk 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Thompson[edit]

Vanity page; not notable Cholmes75 14:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• copy vio - tagged as such CLW 15:16, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finale X[edit]

You'd think a combination of a common word like "Finale" and a single letter with multiple meanings would get enough Google hits to muddle the issue, and indeed it does. But once you add in words like "nova shadow" or "xesh", it's clear that this is nothing. It's utterly non-notable. Purge. DS 14:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Del per nom Anetode 14:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DS - CLW 15:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what is this about? Shauri 20:40, 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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules[edit]

Wikipedia is not instructive. The level of detail this article goes into is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The official rules (117 pages) are readily available at the official website. I also have doubts that showing this many cards constitutes fair use. Delete -- Norvy (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the article goes into too much detail, it needs to be pared down, not deleted. The official rules are indeed available, but are much, much less helpful to the layman than this article is. I believe this article is perfect for describing how Magic is played; it's not in any way an "instruction manual". The 117 pages you mentioned are an instruction manual. The fair use issue is a legitimate concern, but simply is not valid support for the deletion of the article; only for deletion of some or all of the card images.

(NB: my explanation should not be construed as support for paring down the article or deleting card images; it's just the reason why deleting the article would be unreasonable, IMO. No more, no less.) --Ashenai 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An encyclopedic article can be written about MTG rules without it turning into a how-to guide. The solution here is editing, not deletion, and I don't think too much paring needs to be done, really. android79 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, encyclopedic topic, can be pared down as necessary. Kappa 16:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This game is notable enough that quite a bit of detail is warranted, though editing is a good idea. --Quintin3265 17:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this is a pretty good overview of a 117-page document. If it needs to be edited, so be it. -- Grev -- Talk 17:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So are we going to start posting the rules for every game in wikipedia? I'm fairly ambivalent to having separate pages like Sorry! rules or Candyland rules. I understand the main article for MtG is much longer than the articles for either of those games, but still...

If there is sufficient content for an article--separate of the game page itself--is there any reason why we shouldn't? Sorry! just doesn't have enough rules, history, and just plain content to make it worth splitting up into separate articles. Magic does.

To use a different parallel: one or two articles seems to be plenty for Lugbara mythology. You think that based on that, we should condense, say, Christianity into a single article, too? ... clearly, there is just vastly more content on some games (or religions) than others, which translates to more articles. --Ashenai 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of the argument, so no vote on this one. The image usage may create a very legitimate fair use issue though.--Isotope23 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTG rules are convoluted, complicated, and changes to them have been controversial. They have evolved over time and have an interesting history. One cannot really say the same thing for Sorry! or Candyland. A better comparison would be Poker, which has many sub-articles on gameplay. A very nice encyclopedic article can be written about MTG rules, and I think we already have one (that could perhaps use some editing). Concerns about image fair use are not relevant here and should be taken up at WP:PUI if an editor so desires. android79 18:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I've always wanted to learn how to play that game but this definitely is an instruction guide. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will volunteer to make it less of a how-to. I think I can turn it into an encyclopedic article. Of course, this probably means reading that 117-page document, so give me a little while – I just got back into the game. :-) (BTW, it is a very expensive hobby.) android79 21:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the whole thing with a fine-toothed editing comb, and I really do think it's encyclopedic as is. Frankly, I don't quite understand what the problem is. Is Rules of chess also unencyclopedic? (No sarcasm intended, I really want to know.) --Ashenai 11:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Wikipedia is not instructive" thing is somewhat overstated. For example, it is right that the Pancakes article, for example, contains what amount to recipes for the food, even though this is - technically - not allowed because of the policy you quote. This page is a valuable resource for many people, and is encyclopaedic, just as the Gin rummy article contains the insturctions for how to play the game. This is just an extension of that. Also, I think your Fair Use comment is not true. I think Fair Use could very reasonably be asserted for all the images. Batmanand 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but recommend cleanup to make more concise and encyclopedic. It's a good detailed description of the game. -- MCB 00:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I can see how edits might be necessary. To be honest, as the person who created this page, I was trying to removal a substantial section of the main article and put it on a separate page. It sort of blew up from there. On the other hand, I think the comparison with Poker is a entirely valid, so it really may not be as much of a problem as it seems. --Khaim 01:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Magic:The Gathering is a major game which very many people play, and so a detailed article on its rules is as valid as articles describing the rules on chess, checkers, go and bridge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per everyone else. This article serves as a useful guide to an extremely notable and popular game that is recognised worldwide. Piecraft 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator took policy totally out of context. ··gracefool |☺ 18:35, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenview Secondary School[edit]

Yellow Pages style entry that consists of just one sentence and hasn't improved since its inception two months ago. Pilatus 15:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redirect to Greenview Secondary School (with correct capitalisation). A little information (i.e. where it is) is better than nothing if someone were to look this up in Wikipedia. I don't believe that two months with no improvement is grounds for deletion - it may be improved at some point in the future. However, I'm not sure what the policy is on whether or not schools need to be notable (or have a certain number of pupils) for inclusion - if there are any such grounds and this one fails, my vote should be changed to delete. CLW 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that otherwise unremarkable schools should be merged into the community that they serve, in this case Pasir Ris in Singapore. And I'd also say that visits by government officials to celebrate the suburb building program or short features in a TV program don't raise the institution above the bar. Pilatus 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Also covering education in Singapore is an excellent way to reduce systemic bias. Kappa 16:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though it will likely be kept. It's still a non-notable and wholly unremarkable school.--Isotope23 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is school is significant to the people of the community it serves. Additional reasons to preserve this are located at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So's the German butcher shop down the street from my house, but it ain't getting an article. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I see nothing wrong with that. As long as the information is neutral, and can be verified. Not to mention a public institution that serves thousands per year is notable. -- Natalinasmpf 15:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will you also welcome neutral information on my house, my car, etc? These are easily verifiable subjects, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia any more than this school does. Cmadler 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you can easily verify the existence of your car. We only have your word to believe. That's the main problem with vanity pages, the verifiability of matierial, or boasts of achievements. I have no real problem otherwise. It's very easy to verify a public institution, but less so for private property, where notability comes in as a qualifier. For a public institution, the argument of notability doesn't apply. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This is an encyclopedia not a guide to irrelevant Singaporese schools. Dunc|☺ 19:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Usual reasons. WMMartin 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Dunc --Aranda56 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 months is nothing. Renominate in 200 years. CalJW 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immediately. Maybe in 200 years someone will come up with something worth writing about it. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For goodness sake we're just trying to lay out a framework to build upon. If you keep repressing it articles like this will never have a chance to grow. I can see some use where we will be tying this in into a larger taxonomy as a whole. -- Natalinasmpf 02:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep schools. Butcher shops do not teach you math. --Vsion 04:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an article. No opinion at present as to whether schools are inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Really does not say much. Vegaswikian 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like what Isotope23 said.--redstucco 09:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inherently notable school in Singapore. Looks like deletionists think Southeast Asian schools may be vulnerable.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep high school for usual reasons. --rob 09:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Isotope23. Cmadler 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Isotope23. *drew 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not just because it is a school, but it is an exceptional one in terms of its archivements.--Huaiwei 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can school articles ever become notable if people attempt to mass delete them when they're just starting out? I'd like to see people try to do this to other stub articles... they'd be eaten alive. why should this be any different? The only non-notable information is vanity, and nonsense... schools aren't vanity. Also, all Secondary Schools are notable. PRueda29 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- DS1953 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is useful still. |Ruennsheng 11:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep advanced 03:05, 29 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 (thus keep). Tally: 5 delete, 9 keep (including the nominator), of which 2 weak and 1 merge. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams[edit]

The notability of this person is not established. My heart goes out to her family and her loved ones, but Wikipedia is simply not the place. Ashenai 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above. --Ashenai 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am changing my vote to Keep. Some of the links on this page have convinced me that this particular kidnapping was notable. --Ashenai 16:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - if the reports of media coverage and celebrity appeals are correct, I believe that this confirms notability. However, the tone of the article needs to be addressed (use of adjective "beautiful" in image caption), and the appeal for information/suspect description details need to be removed as these are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. CLW 16:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep National coverage, such as CNN, and others makes the events and her notable. Obviously, the article needs to be changed, though. --rob 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are regrettably many kidnaps in many parts of the world. This is not more notable than most others. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument for deletion - if all these kidnappings are notable, they all deserve entries. Just because they haven't been created, doesn't mean to say ones that have been created should go. Research these other notable kidnappings and create entries for them if you have objections! CLW 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:DJ Clayworth Pilatus 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as it looks like someone cleaned up the article a bit. and a quick scan of Google establishes notability, though a low level of it at that.--Isotope23 18:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing especially notable about this missing person. Thousands of people go missing each year. Having PSA's made by Clint Eastwood does not make this article of encyclopedic value. —thames 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this figure has received notable nationwide press coverage, people may want to research this further here on Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 19:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a memorial. Well, it didn't used to be a memorial, but it is becoming one. Quale 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant media coverage and public response. --Vsion 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a Megan's Law website. This was so nationally publicized that I never heard of it, and I live in California and am a news junkie. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Well, the fact you can't remember it is totally meaningless. It is absurd, how often articles are deleted, because somebody didn't personally remember hearing of somebody. No one person is a repository of all notable people (or all notable people in a state of 25+ million). We shouldn't limit an enyclopedia to the personal memory of a single person. --rob 05:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Justification for keeping the article is that her plight made national news and had sifnigicant media coverage. I am objecting to that justification. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of kidnappings. Deserves mention, but not its own article. PRueda29 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge ··gracefool |☺ 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Poor Christina. :( OmegaWikipedia 20:49, 26 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. — JIP | Talk 16:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay hooray[edit]

Patently nn community. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn, probably vanity CLW 16:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = as above Batmanand 22:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto DannyZz 00:01, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sportscentre[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable DJ Clayworth 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not convinced the newspaper itself is even notable - this column certainly isn't. And the glowing language used ("celebrated", "renowned", "best sports column this side of [God knows where]") has smells vanitous if you ask me... CLW 16:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, biased viewpoint, personal opinions, vanity, promotional page — Cory Maylett 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --TimPope 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN; I can't even verify the existance of the column or the authors. Googling Sportscentre leads to a Canadian TV show.--Isotope23 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe the newspaper in which this column appears is the Alamo Heights High School newspaper (confirmed by Alamo Heights Independent School District). Individual high school newspapers are non-notable, and the columns therein are even less notable. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 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 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. — JIP | Talk 16:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spangel[edit]

Fancruft. Al 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - flush out this cruft! CLW 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism which deleted the above and which replaced the votes with the following comments - "This page should be saved. Spangel is an idea which is a focus of a large and distinct fan following. Those who would want it deleted and pandering to Homophobia." Grow up. CLW 18:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Isotope23 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism... same message as CLW. I wish this could be Speedied.--Isotope23 20:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism again...--Isotope23 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Spangel is very much a part of the internet reality and it deserves a place here at Wikipedia. Unless Wikipedia discriminates sexual preferences, this should be definitely Bold textKEPTBold text! Ostile17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.181.178 (talk • contribs) 17:25, September 20, 2005
• Delete, pointless fancruft.Vizjim 22:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• On the outside chance that the vandalism to the votes was just a clueless voter, here are their comments: "Keep Spangel. Despite what some may think about this undoubtedly slang term within the fandom, many a fan fiction writer has been inspired by said term. This is not some term pulled from the rear (so to speak) of a random fan; Spangel is a part of the Buffy/Angelverse, and should therefore be kept alive on this page." -unsigned by 68.204.220.234
• Delete as fancruft. I could see it meriting one sentence in the main Angel (TV series) or slash fiction article at most. -- MCB 00:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Spangel- The popularity of 'Spangel' fanfiction and the 'Spangel' relationship in general is in itself a good enough reason to save this term from deletion. Kudos to Wikipedia for providing a succinct yet comprehensive explanation of this very entertaining Buffyverse phenomenon. --Jossophile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.120.2 (talk • contribs) 22:11, September 20, 2005
• Delete as far as I can tell. This information would be better served on a page such as Angel (TV series), Angel (vampire) or Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). --Metropolitan90 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This page should stay. As others have said there is a very strong "Spangel" community and as with the pages which cover subjects such as Yaoi of r slash you have to have pages that describe specific phenomena and fandoms.
  There is a smell of bigotry in the anger with which some of the people who want the page shut down are reacting and this should not be tollerated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.133.215 (talk • contribs) 03:46, September 21, 2005
• Comment: Those who believe this AfD is motivated by homophobia are woefully misguided. I suggest you read WP:ISNOT. This article is simply not encyclopedic. (And, frankly, I'm insulted. I don't know that you'll ever meet a more gay-friendly straight guy than me.) Al 12:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Agree with the above.Don't think this is encyclopedic either.Nor are the others such as Bangel,Spuffy,Sparmony,Dangel,Cangel,Fresley and the half dozen slang terms created for every conceivable pairing thought of for this or other shows such as Clana and Clex,Chlark,Clois etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.55.126 (talk • contribs) 11:09, September 21, 2005

• KEEP - Spangel is a legitimate term used to name a specific relationship between two fictional characters within a popular fandom. There are numerous web sites and livejournals dedicated to the fan fiction written exclusively about the intimate relationship between vampires Spike and Angel. This relationship has been referenced by the creator of the characters, Joss Whedon, in both print interviews and "Angel" season 5 DVD commentaries, as well as writers and co-producers of the show. It was made 'cannon' in the episode "Power Play". Anindoorkitty 23:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (User's only edits are this AfD)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Levin[edit]

Non-notable poet "A. J. Levin" gets 381 Google hits, not all of which refer to this person; article refers to one poem ("Monks' fruit," which gets about 150 Google hits, not all of which actually refer to the poem; poem was nominated for a marginally-notable award. Possibility of merging relevant info to the article on the award. Paul 16:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic DannyZz 00:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity. --Apyule 06:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge; the award has been presented annually since 1981 and can't realistically contain merged info about just one non-winning nominee out of the entire bunch. Bearcat 05:09, 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 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 (thus keep). Not an easy decision, but the policy says: when in doubt, don't delete. I count 7 delete votes (including the nominator), most of which have short motivation, apparently based on the opinion that no game fansite is encyclopaedic. On the other side, we have 4 keep votes (excluding the anonymous ones but including the rather new user Beerdude26), of which two merge and one perhaps merge. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halflife2.net[edit]

Non-notable forum. --fvw* 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, is according to alexa 71,012 visited site [10]. Also well known in the half-life/game crowd. -feydey 16:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google only gives 13 unique hits for "Halflife2.net". --fvw* 16:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are the largest Hl2.net community on the net. It wont bother anyone if we keeping it.
• Delete Whatever its ranking its still a game fansite. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Forumcruft. Even if it is the largest Hl2 fansite on the internet, the bulk of the article concerns "incidents" that are of absolutely no interest to anyone outside of the Halflife2.net community. --Isotope23 18:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This section is WIP. Give it time and all issues will be resolved. As I said, keep the page. This will be of interest in the future.

Halflife2.net was influential in the development of Half Life 2, one of the most popular games of all time. -Miccy

If you don't like it, don't come here, but the fact is that Halflife2.net was infact a huge gateway to the revealing of critical key information for the game halflife2, and deserves just as much right to be here as other seemingly irrelevant articles. --- Wolfman

• Comment, can anyone probe the HL2 development was indeed influenced by this site?
  • Answer, yes, Halflife2.net is the community that was originally informed of the HL2 leak. The news spread out from there. Forum Thread
• Merge If it was instrumental in the development of HL2, it should be on the game's page, even if as only a link. But that doesn't mean that it warrants an article. Anetode 04:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insignificant forum-cruft. jni 14:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. A huge source of official information (over 50 pages of Valve e-mail responses). Also involved in the so called "Tests" by the Valve personnel. A valuable piece of Half-Life 2 folklore.--Beerdude26 19:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Would you expect this in Encyclopaedia Britannica? --Neigel von Teighen 15:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wouldn't expect to see video games in an Encyclopaedia Britannica at all, no matter if they're popular. There's even a Wikipedia page for Sam Fisher, the fictional hero in the game Splinter Cell (And its sequels). Wikipedia houses many articles that shouldn't be in Wikipedia.--Beerdude26 16:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Forumcruft. Thunderbrand 19:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think delete is too far - the site deserves an entry, probably soley for the purpose of the news announcment of the Half-Life2 leak. And that's that - the nonsensical entries relevant only to the members of the HL2.net community are probably best left GONE.--[User:Pseudonym|Pseudonym]] 2:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps merge ··gracefool |☺ 18:36, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xingguang Dadao[edit]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 16:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is not yet completed. What kind of evidence do you need ?

• Delete - articles being linked to this also show a lack of notability. One singer linked to this article was credited with singing at supermarket openings. Tracyt1800 16:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• it has to be American to be notable ??? The three million people who live here have never heard of you either, Tracyt (unsigned comment by 219.129.91.20)

uh, maybe that's why Tracyt doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia. CLW 17:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nn. Five Google hits, of which at least two seem to relate to a TV show. CLW 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. To the anon author, being American/Western/whatever is not notability. Rather, it's a question of does this subject rate an encyclopedia entry? As it stands, this looks like a stage or club or something, one of (probably) millions around the world. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn - from what I can find, it's some sort of night club. I'd delete it if it was in New York. ---Outlander 22:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Our teachers are teaching us to read English and use internet we like to read some thing about our city. Before last week only thing about our city was some religious man who live in ancient time. We dont know. jameschen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenjames (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 September 2005
• Delete per CLW. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable entertainment venue. I think it deserves a short mention in the Shaoguan article, though, which I think I'll add. -- MCB 19:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it was already there; I added the location. MCB

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. — JIP | Talk 16:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amish businessman[edit]

A poem by a 17 year old. It won first place in a regional competition, but is still borderline notable. Francs2000 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think this is even borderline notable. And it is probably vanity. The competition isn't named, so it's not possible to verify whether even the competition is notable. CLW 17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with CLW. Stezton 17:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not verifiable; not notable --Isotope23 18:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found the article blanked and reverted it--please watch for vandalism. Chick Bowen 22:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A poet would have to be really, really, really notable for us to need an article on each one of their individual poems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DannyZz 00:05, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.