Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 27

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 26 September 28 >

Purge server cache

September 27

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LFConseil

edit

Advertisement. No claim of notability, and founding date doesn't suggest they have done anything important yet (neither does their website). Also to consider is that the article in French wiki has been deleted too. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 09:32, 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 Speedied. android79 13:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midget AAA

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Fabric

edit

I'm considering this article to be original research because it appears to be some sort of rant about Christian values. Solarusdude 00:08, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 keep · Katefan0(scribble) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire

edit

This might be the most horribly garbled article I've ever seen. The topic is certainly notable, and an appropriate article about eugenics in the Japanese empire (or in Japan in general) should be created, but this article offers little that would be of use Paul 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done on cleaning it up. You should appreciate that many of us have no expertise in this area. So an Afd seems appropriate to me for the original state of the article - either somebody knows and cares, or they don't and if nobody does then delete is a good course of action. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment: The policy page tells me things like 'use extreme caution merging any material', which I really don't like (merging is key to some clean-ups); and anyone can see this article should be moved to a grammatical title. So I don't accept that gun-to-the-head is a good way to expedite clean-up. Charles Matthews
Charles Matthews is definitely right about not using AfD for cleanup. We already have {cleanup} available as a tag, and that's much more appropriate (per nom who states in the AfD itself that the "topic is notable"). Voting "keep", BTW, doesn't obligate a voter to do the cleanup her/himself—doing so is great, but not everyone has expertise in everything. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks better after the clean-up and there is a lot of scope for a good article here. Keresaspa 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was cleaned up significantly since Paul's nomination. All who voted "Delete" prior to Charles' work, please review the new version. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move What salvageable content is here should be moved to the 'Eugenics and the state, 1890s-1945' section of Eugenics, which is a very fine article and is where readers can find additional information as well as context. With respect, I find the cleanup commendations confounding. The Eugenics article illustrates a number of highly dubious assertions in this. Most notably, the author has conflated a science (genetics) with a social philosophy (eugenics), unless I have somehow missed the Japanese eugenics degree available as a pre-war discipline. Also, the last line, Eugenic thinking probably had wider effects. Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated. Military personnel who violated these instructions were severely punished is nonsense. Since when did Japanese society, especially the military, need eugenics to promote a world-view based on racial superiority? Instead, the theory of eugenics and social Darwinism worked well within a social system that already fostered such a view. Bottom line: moving this to Eugenics will get this content the cleanup it desperately needs. (My comment is based on the Revision of 10:15, 27 September 2005.) Dottore So 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still stand by my nomination, and while the article is much less of a mess than it was, my reasons for the nomination included the lack of references, the vague information, and the poorly phrased article title. As I did indeed say, the topic is notable and article-worthy, but it would be better to have a one sentence stub than a badly titled, vague, sloppy article. Sure, I could have added the cleanup tag and forgotten about it, but in my opinion it's better to start from scratch. Hey, look, there is potential for an excellent article about the topic, but let's do it right, eh? (Note: I was going to follow Neutrality's suggestion and create the article Eugenics in imperial Japan, but I was unsure as to what the article itself should consist of.) Paul 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Eugenics in Imperial Japan.--Apostrophe 00:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per Apostrophe. --Apyule 06:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Will you realy keep an article like this (so short, such statements: "Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated.") with no references? -- Andy.we 12:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you vote to delete an article, not nominated here for lack of references, before requesting that references be supplied? (NB it is easier to get sound references for Nazi Germany, say, on a given point, by a factor of about 100.) Charles Matthews
    • Hi Charles. I did not want to vote, because I have no detailed knowledge about japanese war crimes. In this case I learned that some Wiki-Links lead to well documented articles Sadao Araki or International Military Tribunal for the Far East for instance, so my critical question me be without substance. I hope you will except this as excusion. Greetings -- Andy.we 16:56, 28 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goln

edit

Non-notable fictional universe. "Several novels have been published" actually turns out to be one published by a vanity press (iUniverse). That lone book has an Amazon.com rank of 'None' and there is a single gushing review that smells like a sock. Al 00:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billyspace

edit

Some form of vanity. Kushboy 00:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bisque (color)

edit

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet blue

edit

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon ("a shade of blue"). Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. Note to admin: if this article is deleted, please make sure to delete Cadet Blue (a redirect) as well -Nameneko 00:31, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean green

edit

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. Only "claim to notability" (as I can think of no better words) is being labelled as an official Crayola color. Note to admin: if this article is deleted, please make sure to delete Caribbean Green, a redirect. -Nameneko 00:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete, and redirect to carrot. --Phroziac(talk)  23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot (color)

edit

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:44, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  23:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar (color)

edit

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 speedied by someone else. --Phroziac(talk)  23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cappuccino cocktails

edit

Not notable. Blatant spam. Jwissick(t)(c) 00:42, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete and BJAODN. --Phroziac(talk)  23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Round Robin sex act

edit

Created by 137.207.80.130 (talk · contribs), who is very likely the same person as Damnationandlove (talk · contribs) (based on [1]), who created a number of preposterous hoax sex-act articles including Greasy Cannonball and others that have already been nominated for AfD. -- Curps 00:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 keep. --Phroziac(talk)  00:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

edit

This is a very long running webcomic I'm putting for deletion, found here. The strip has been around for about 6 years, yet a google search shows up nothing different about this site and every other website out there. I'm not sure about how The Web Comic list ranks webcomics, but the stats page shows an average of 80 views a month, AzN_PRinCes5's livejournal gets more than that. Just because it is a webcomic does not make it more notable than any other website out there, no matter what WP:COMIC says. - Hahnchen 00:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. --Phroziac(talk)  00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stubble (web comic)

edit

A little read webcomic, found here. Although their forums here show some kind of activity, with 500 members, most posts and threads relate to another webcomic on that forum. Alexa gives a rank of over a million so I can quite safely say it isn't a widely read comic. - Hahnchen 00:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Express

edit

A non notable webcomic which can be found here. Although it has had over 500 strips, a google search for the term shows up nothing which suggests notability over any other website in the world. Alexa does not name it as one of the more popular keenspace comics, and is not mentioned in the site report. All this leads to delete, along with all other unnotable websites out there. - Hahnchen 01:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One0media

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 DELETE. This is on the edge of the oft-used two-thirds guideline. However, I note that the second merge is unsure of itself and the move (which is really a merge given its description and the obviousness of not actually moving to that title) is very unsure of itself. So I think the two-thirds guideline fits ok here. -Splashtalk 23:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

edit

A page of trivia about the Supreme Court of the U.S., of questionable value and not worthy of a separate article. NoSeptember 01:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 REDIRECT to Gabriel Knight. No-one wants to retain the content, but there's no consensus to delete it outright. I will fix the double redirect. -Splashtalk 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schattenjager

edit

del. Nonnotable fancruft. mikka (t) 01:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Reflux

edit

None notable webcomic, which can be found here along with its deforested forums here. Alexa turns out nothing for this webcomic, and Google search only gives links to Acid Reflux disease (?). Further searches still did nothing to show how acid reflux stands out from the masses of websites out there. - Hahnchen 01:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 MERGE to Minor characters in Bloom County, which has already been done. -Splashtalk 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud the Basselope

edit

nn Minor Character in Comic Even Says it in the article.Delete or maybe merge with Minor Characters in Bloom County which I think there is an article around somewhere --JAranda | yeah 01:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy2

edit

.--------------------------------
.| SAVE US OH GREAT STAR EMPEROR |
.|_______________________________|
. O |
. \/|\/|
. /\
. | \
Vote of "keep" withdrawn. - The IP who wrote this has asked on my talk page that I not post his IP here again, and that he has withdrawn his original vote of keep. Here is the original vote: [2]. --Blackcap | talk 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find it honestly ridiculous that so many of you are so eager to delete things based purely on the fact that they aren't relevant 'to you'. Unless the entry is a lie, slander or muddying legitimate data, LEAVE IT ALONE. DJKurtz 11:32, 26 September 2005 (PST) - Post actually by 69.230.199.145, not either Vendorx or DJKurtz. This is 69.230.199.145's third edit, all other edits are also to Philosophy2 or this AfD. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable chatroom. Was speedied, but does not seem to fall under CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Finally I get what it is! I've heard about philosphy2 a few times before and never understood. this site rocks - Unsigned post by Pinkpinkyoustink. This is this user's second edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.----------------------
.| SPARE #P2 |
.|___________|
. O |
.\/|\/|
. /\
. | \
-Unsigned post by 151.200.241.16. This is 151.200.241.16's tenth edit, all of its other edits are either to Philosophy2 or this AfD. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The chatroom #Philosophy2 is just the visible part of an extense underground movement. It is an important reference to understand the complex world of cyberculture. - Unsigned post by 200.125.17.148 as its first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.-----------------
.| DELETE |
.|________|
. O |
.\/|\/|
. /\
. | \
as per nom --Last Malthusian 14:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (and learn to draw ASCII art as well)[reply]

Delete per Dottoreso - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Mustafaoğlu

edit

Non-notable bio. A secondary-level diplomat of a small country is not notable enough for Wikipedia. — Mateo SA | talk 02:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fubism

edit

Probable hoax, GameFAQs junk.--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly believe that this article should NOT be deleted. Fubism has gained a lot of steam recently and it has hundreds of followers. It is no different than any other small religious organization and information deserves to be available to all who request it. It would be a great shame if this perspective was shot down in the age of tolerance of religion.

That's just my view. Thanks.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swamped (EP)

edit

nn non-hit song Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrisification

edit

neologism, and a pretty thin one at that, article even admits that it's rare. This was tagged with a speedy>neologism but it really doesn't belong there. Rx StrangeLove 02:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Community

edit

plus two redirects to it.

NN Web site, ranks 450,000 on Alexa. Delete Owen× ☎ 02:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Dubord

edit

This artist gets seven primary results from Google [3], which doesn't seem to make him sufficiently notable. Delete. The article has POV problems which should be addressed if it is kept.-gadfium 03:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Zavgorodnij

edit

nn - maybe vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without Zavgorodnij, Kadochnikov system would not have recieved it's patent, and he still actively teaches today. His name is well respected in the Russian martial art world. If you are to put Kadochnikov, Vasiliev, Ryabko, and Retuinskih on this site, his name should not be excluded. He figures majorly into Kadochnikov system.(Unsigned comment by Russinfo this is his first contribution to Wikipedia.)

  • Delete 3 distinct google hits puts him well below even the most generous notability reading. Agree it could be vanity, although it is probably not speediable. Dottore So 19:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dottore So. -- Kjkolb 23:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Following the links from this article, it would appear that this is part of a series of articles on Russian martial arts. If so, then it wouldn't surprise me that a Google search would result in so few hits. No, I don't know if this is a hoax or some sort nationalistic cultural myth . . . but how much would it hurt to leave this article in Wikipedia (cleaned up, of course because the links & grammar in this article are atrocious) until someone can research this matter further? And if it is proven a hoax, then we can harvest a large number of articles here with a minimum of fuss. (BTW, unsigned comments do not help to convince people to keep this article.) -- llywrch 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/vanity --redstucco 08:54, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counts Von Zimmermann

edit

This is of minor genealogical interest. WP is not for material that's merely of genealogical interest, and this is unlikely to be of any interest to more than a few dozen people in the world. -- Hoary 03:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly notable in the context of Maltese social history. It wouldn't be up for deletion if it was an English peerage (or would not be deleted in the unlikely event that it was) and the fact that it is Maltese shouldn't make a difference. This is one of many such articles and I can see no reason for it to be singled out in this way. CalJW 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I see nothing whatever in the article that is of social significance. What did these counts do? What was their effect on Malta? We don't learn anything of this. I too am unswayed by the fact that this is about Malta; I'd countenance an article on a family of some clearly expressed notability in Malta or anywhere else. Yes, this is one of a number of articles about "noble" Maltese families. I'm picking on this and Testaferrata because among the several that I have examined these are two whose subjects seem non-notable (other nobles have had some notability claimed for them), and because my time and effort are limited. (Analogously, I catch a few examples of blatant vandalism each day; I'd hope not to be accused of "picking on" those particular vandals.) -- Hoary 04:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I’d like to see this expanded per Hoary’s comments above. The article is pretty thin as it stands. ♠ DanMS 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Count. Nobility does not imply nobility as shown in the deletion of the aricle of Dr. Charles Gauci and as explained in the current afd on Stephen Sant Fournier. Changes were done to a comment I placed on the talk page of Stephen Sant Fournier as Hoary said. Maltesedog 12:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members of the nobility (of any country) are inherently notable. --Nicodemus75 13:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. However, isn't the statement Information provided by Charles Said-Vassallo on the page something of a problem? Vizjim 15:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I for one am not picking on anybody's work alone; just see my log. If you'd like to have a user censured or banned, you might try an RfC rather than here. -- Hoary 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I am not picking on anyone and anybody's work alone! I view afd's, and browse through articles mainly related to Malta and comment on what should be kept, modified, and deleted. I also put forward my contributions. Rest assured that most of your contributions are valid contributions and should be kept in Wikipedia. Maltesedog 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Counts and other nobility were highly notable during the period of their dominance in history. Highly notable in their relevant time period is more than notable enough for inclusion here today. Unfocused 15:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Titles of nobility are inherently notable (not to say that every individual that holds them is, though).--Pharos 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, wikipedia is not a genealogy database. --fvw* 06:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The title itself never held any authority in Malta, as the HRE had no authority there between its creation in 1790 and its abolition in 1806, so it can't claim notability on that basis. The title is not recognized by the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility so it can't clain notability on that basis. The Association of Foreign Title Holders in Malta is basically just a modern geneology club formed in 1994, so membership there is not notable. The only basis I can see for the notablity of the title is in its creation in 1790 by either the dying Joseph II or the newly crowned Leopold II (a detail the article really should include if it is kept). However, with the 18th century seeing the creation of so many courtesy noble titles, I'd like to see some evidence that the title actually had some lands held in liege before I'm prepared to accept that the title is notable. That the first Count von Zimmermann was notable, I'll grant since he was able to secure at least a courtesy noble title from a major monarch. If evidence that the title was more than simply a courtesy title can be pointed to then I'll change my vote to keep. Caerwine 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because of this remarkable man [4]. In general I think we should at least keep the generic articles for a Burkes Peerage title, if we're not having every holder of those titles. Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobility does not imply notability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of counts, and there were millions in recorded history. Claim to notability has been contradicted by Caerwine. Martg76 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article (along with a number of others by the same editor) appears to be original research. I also agree with the comments above regarding "nobility" not equalling "notability"; just because someone claims to have inherited a fairly meaningless title does not justify a place in an encyclopaedia. Also, by analogy, one could argue that there should be (say) an article for every doctor registered in the United States, regardless of individual merit. Silverhelm 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Titles aren't inherently notable, and no reaon is given for the notability of this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. I don't think you can really merge to a non-existent page. You could move there, perhaps, but not merge. -Splashtalk 23:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Les Associés

edit

Non-notable hocket team. baseball team. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:58, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Les Regents

edit

Non-notable. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:58, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lice Research Group

edit

Not sure if this is vanity or a hoax. No references found on Google. Groeck 04:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testaferrata

edit

This is of minor genealogical interest. WP is not for material that's merely of genealogical interest, and this is unlikely to be of any interest to more than a few dozen people in the world. -- Hoary 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary statement. Malta is an independent country, with several thousand years of history behind it, and its size should not count against it. Vizjim 11:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that was going too far. Still it is a very recent title. -- Kjkolb 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The titles and persons involved for deletion are of Ancient Noble families. Nothing new at all. Tancarville 18:08, 28 September 2005 (EST)
  • Keep. Titles of nobility are inherently notable (not to say that every individual that holds them is, though).--Pharos 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please caljw is right this is notable anyhow Yuckfoo 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article itself does not contain enough to explain why this noble title is notable, and I am firmly not of the opinion that all noble titles are notable. Far too many courtesy titles were created in post-Renaissance Europe for me to accept such titles are notable without further evidence. However, a little fact checking was enough to convince me that it meets my definition of a notable noble title on several points, tho if all I had to judge by was the content of this article, I'd be voting to delete. Caerwine 16:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Titles aren't inherently notable, and no reaon is given for the notability of this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted --Doc (?) 15:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpskully

edit

NN band. Less than 300 Google hits, Allmusic has no record of them, their site on Myspace.com shows performances in small venues and no record of touring, unsigned, no releases. Enough? Denni☯ 04:11, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Japanese Seizure Robots

edit

Prior nomination was found with no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Japanese Seizure Robots/Archive --AllyUnion (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a single page website Do not click if prone to epilepsy or bad taste. The article references a small part of a Simpson's episode, Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I really don't think that the website warrants an article of it's own. It was previously nominated for deletion here. The discussion in the previous nomination tended towards a merge, but I feel that there is already sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo Trivia section. Does this prank webpage warrant an article? Is there sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes article? I don't think that merging is a good idea, especially given the backlog. - Hahnchen 02:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a hoax or whatnot. --Phroziac(talk)  06:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blooki

edit

Looks like a hoax. Delete Groeck 04:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

URJ Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute

edit

Religious camp of which notability not established / asserted in article Hurricane111 04:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim's Tasty Freeze

edit

non-notable fast food place. Under 20 googles. Reads like an ad. Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:51, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fap Fap Train

edit

Possibly forum cruft, but largely nonsense chowells 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Proto t c 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It sounds like a friend telling you a really pointless story. Oswax 17:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something happened in a webforum somewhere: that's the content of this article in less than 10 words. No articles link to this one, & while GameFAQs sheds a sliver of light on what this might be about, the unlinked mention of "Random Insanity" could reference about almost anything (a Google query fails to help) including a random group of schizophrenics. If I understood what the point of this article was, maybe I could decide whether this was notable; but I'm not sure if that's worth the effort. To whoever wrote this article: please work harder on your next contribution to Wikipedia. Only your obvious newbie status is all that protects you from some truly meanspirited jokes at your expense over this effort. -- llywrch 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of anything that happened in a webforum somewhere that was encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 28 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrich Ames: Traitor Within

edit

To be deleted. Unsourced conspiracy theory/original research. User:84.54.166.36 has been repeatedly inserting this information into various articles and has not provided sources despite being asked to do so. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Court

edit

Renomination after ludicrously fast Speedy Keep. Non-notable video-game webforum. "morrowinds Spam Court" gets 6 Google hits, and "morrowinds 'Spam Court'" gets 0. Delete. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 USERFY. — JIP | Talk 04:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Atkinson

edit

Vanity about an "award-winning" singer-songwriter. There's no Allmusic listing and no Google hits for "tyler atkinson" combined with any of the songs listed in the article:

I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedying it because it at least tries to claim notability, however vaguely. Note also that User:Tyler Atkinson tried to list himself on the "notable alumni" list in the article University of California, Santa Cruz. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HE WINS AT LIFE he is super notable and has been to the moon

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Splashtalk 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in Egyptian Mythology

edit
  • del original research in numerology. Verifiability. mikka (t) 05:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that this is should be deleted as "original research," it is more likely "source-based research." Based on my memory of Egyptian mythology (admittedly, my memory is based on an history class taken three years ago for fun) most of the numbers listed in the article are "verifiable" with reference to the myths (though some of them are rather obscure). I'd tag with "cleanup" and "needs references" instead and let it go at that. Crypticfirefly 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Okay, I'm changing my vote to weak keep because it is going to be a pain in the tuchis to figure out what was referred to in order to put in some of the references necessary to clean this thing up. It looks like most of the information came from Egyptian Myth and Legend, by Donald Mackenzie, published in 1907. Armed with this information, it should be possible, if tedious, to find each reference. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Okay, I see that someone who doesn't understand how to use the reference tag put in the other references. I have fixed this so the references make sense. A good start, though it would be nice if they cited something other than various websites. Crypticfirefly 02:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Changing vote back to Keep, I've found a print reference that supports some of the choices here (and added one cite to it already). It appears that this article is not "original research," though it has done a poor job of identifying its sources. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree this article is terrible as it stands, but the topic is inherently valuable. This should be cleaned up, not deleted. Dottore So 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • <Shrug>. Original research is usually not cleanupable. It is deletable and rewritable from scrathchabe. If you know a way to do in a sourced way and all, by all means welcome. I have no reasons to believe the author in each and every entry. Too much bullshit is known to be slipped by zealous numerologists in between legitimate facts. mikka (t) 20:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of these would be easy to verify with a good reference book on Egyptian mythology (which I do not have handy). "Cleanup" would do it.
        • References to specific numbers have now been verified.
  • Delete. Without some discussion of why these numbers are important, it's no better an article than List of numbers. --Carnildo 20:42, 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 moved to proper name. mikka (t) 23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian gold (symbol)

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual pranks

edit

WP is not a slang dictionary. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:54, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Weird Conference

edit

One otherwise non-notable chunk of a private online community (WELL). Hell, I'm a member of the WELL, I don't think it's notable, and I can't imagine why anyone else in the world would. Calton | Talk 08:09, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skybolt Fusion Reactor

edit

At best original research. The concept is unknown in the fusion energy community, and certainly hasn't been published in a reputable journal. Art Carlson 08:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cunts in a Kitchen

edit

Dictionary Definition --Porturology 08:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, type of television commercial. Kappa 11:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it was not a dictionary definition. It was a stub. Dictionary articles and stubs are two different things. The question is whether it is a stub with any hope of expansion, or a stub that has no hope whatsoever of expansion. After reading the article as nominated, I was on the side of deleting it. After reading the article as nominated, it appeared to be no more than an unverifiable concept described in one Stephen King novel, with no hope of expansion beyond the one quotation from that novel. Maybe there was such a class of advertizement, but this surely wouldn't be its name. But after research, I am surprised to find that this is the accepted term for a widely recognized class of advertisement, and is verifiable, with the potential to not be a perpetual stub. Keep. Uncle G 11:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question I would ask is what is the evidence that this is widely accepted slang. My Google search shows 8 distinct mentions - only 1 or 2 appear to be ad related. The rest are second hand (e.g "or as they say in the industry..."). If this was widely accepted slang, I would expect many maore direct hits. Secondly could this be a back formation i.e. an adaption of Stephen King's termonology by people outside the industry. I feel we should have input from someone in the industry or we may be perpetuating a hoax.--Porturology 12:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has multiple references that are at least somewhat credible to support its existence. That is enough to keep the article itself. Unless someone provides a credible rebuttal reference to show it's a hoax, final determination of whether this is a hoax or not should be left as an exercise for each reader. Unfocused 15:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added reference to use in the 80s and 90s. I think the article is significant in that, as the references say, it is not just a definition, but provides an insight into the thought patterns of the advertising industry. Although it's not all over the internet, advertising industry stuff isn't all over the internet in general, interestingly. Gzuckier 16:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A google search on Cs in a K or C's in a K generates about 60 and 50 hits respectively. What a nasty phrase. Dottore So 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a dict def. Secretlondon 21:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jwissick(t)(c) 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand as currently written; seems to be evolving beyond a dicdef/slang into an actual summary of the phenomenon. Nae'blis 22:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable phenomenon and capable of expansion. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems quite notable.--Pharos 03:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' please this is not a dictionary definition so why erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 05:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. --Apyule 07:07, 28 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All else fails

edit

NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 09:20, 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.

RaD Man was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

13 votes delete, 9 to keep, 1 to merge/redirect. 1 vote, by User:Guybrushnd, was disregarded as likely sock puppet, due to limited and questionable edit history—I have concluded that all other alleged sock puppets are ostensibly valid votes.

This tally amounts to 14 votes to 9 against having RaD Man as an independent article, nearly a 2/3 consensus, but only 13 to 10 for deleting the content entirely. I believe this logically calls for merging and redirection, but only one vote suggested where. Another solution may be to continue the listing, so that the decision of where to merge may be discussed, and additional votes may be added. As I was one of the voters in such a close VfD, I will decline to personally enact a resolution. Postdlf 01:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I confirm Postdlf's tally of votes. In addition, I must admit that User:Eto's contribution history is suspicious having come into existence the same day as this discussion was initiated. (The time-stamps are ambiguous, perhaps as a result of timezones.) In addition, his edits (at least as a logged in user) stopped two days later with a high proportion of edits to VfD discussions.
However, even if User:Eto's vote is discounted, the final tally fails to reach the necessary consensus for deletion. By default, the article is kept.
Comment1: Based on the comments below, the notability of the subject of this article may change over time. At that point, the decision about the appropriateness of this article may be reevaluated.
Comment 2: It does not require a VfD vote or even consensus to turn this article in to a merge and redirect if future editors determine that to be the most appropriate final resolution for this article. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RaD Man

edit

Vanity. See also Remorse 1981 and User:Radman1. RickK 05:00, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Are you kidding me? Rad_Man is one of the most historical figures in the 'underground' art scene, and led one of the most influential groups of the time. It's like not having Bill_Gates in wikipedia. Seriously. -- Eto 23:58, 17 Oct 2004 (PST)
Possible sock puppet vote, 6th edit.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 07:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Eto is quite possibly not a sockpuppet, he has been here for a full month, and has just made very few edits. —siroχo 04:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I wish people would hang around longer and have more contributions before they start participating in VfD. It'd help make sure people have a good grasp of what Wikipedia is before they start participating in policy actions. --Improv 13:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If he's underground, let's bury him. Delete --Improv 20:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is given. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I saw the guy give a seminar about textmode scene at Assembly 2004... This might be a good idea to verify it. // Gargaj 21:57, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
yep thats him alright. Alkivar 22:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All this ANSII crap is vanity. Postdlf 08:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --*drew 08:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity autobiography. jni 12:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity IMO. Andrewa 12:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Let's say he's the #1 figure in an underground movement. Ok. It's an underground movement. I.e. it is a movement where people don't use their real names, where the people don't document their work. Therefore, it is an entirely unverifiable "scene" and a scene that does not have wide acceptance. And you're outraged that the group isn't represented in an encyclopedia? Huh? Geogre 13:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would only be more outraged by ignorant trolls such as yourself. By entirely unverifiable scene, what do you mean exactly? A quick search at Amazon seems to not only verify but document the work you claim doesn't exist. Refer to ISBNs 952917022X, 1859734243 and 0974653705 as well as the demo DVD, ASIN B00007M4IB. I suppose it is always easier to just follow the herd. School ya later! GRider 21:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, hehe. Unless notability can be proven. Nadavspi 18:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It might be vanity, but he has interviews over the last 8 years. Plus a few Google searches shows plenty of information on him. He's seems to be a signifigant enough figure in an art world to be worth keeping. -Lifefeed 19:17, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've been interviewed over the last 30 years or so, and I could come up under Google, but I don't deserve an article. Neither does he. RickK 19:40, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • He seems to be a notable person in an underground art movement. That's deserving to me. - Lifefeed 15:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Let someone contribute an article about you, RickK, and we'll be the judge. GRider 21:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and be careful with those scissors. What I'd suggest is a major once-over to make sure its NPOV (in case its written by RaD Man himself). Several cases of minor notability are presented, and yes, notability does add, as it affects more and different people. —siroχo 21:52, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The hatred towards demosceners is disgusting. This 'encyclopedia' is becoming a useless example of press-gang censorship. Delete, instead, the mob that wanders around in force, burning out everything related to an effort to chronicle a misunderstood art form. --Guybrushnd 06:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Cool, sockpuppet. [7]--Lucky13pjn 14:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm new. I'm not RadMan though. You could check my page, which has my real name, and then bother to spend 10 seconds googling me. Or come down to my workplace. --Guybrushnd 15:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't even know what a demoscener is, so there's no way I could hate them. What I DO hate is trolls who waste our time with all of this nonsense. RickK 21:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rationale at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Remorse 1981. —Triskaideka 17:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonably notable at the moment. In 5 years he may well be completely forgotten - so let's delete him then.--Tomheaton 20:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not a news site. Anything that isn't going to be encyclopedic five years from now isn't encyclopedic now. Subjects must have established a lasting effect on culture or history before they merit encyclopedia articles. —Triskaideka 20:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Reply to Comment: What do you mean by encyclopaedic? If you mean capable of being described in an encylopaedic fashion - which is what I take it to mean - then he will be as encyclopaedic in 5 years time or in 1000 years time as he is now. If you mean notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia then I've got to disagree with you. We really don't know who will be notable in 5 years time. Wikipedia has plenty of people who may be less notable in 5 years time than they are now. But that's fine because Wikipedia is a database - nice and easy to edit - let's take a risk and include him now and if in 5 years time his notability has waned then he can be deleted in a trice.--Tomheaton 20:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I mean notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. You're right that it's difficult to tell what subjects from the present will be notable in the future, but that doesn't excuse us from the responsibility to write articles only on things that will be. Better to wait a few years until we're sure that a subject deserves an article than to rush into writing an article on a subject that turns out to be nonnotable. We're building an encyclopedia here, not maintaining a list of the latest fads. Just because an internet-based encyclopedia can have nonce information inserted and removed rapidly doesn't mean that it should, nor indeed that it will, in practice. —Triskaideka 21:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- While there is no argument that any page about a given person is vain to a degree, this person is certainly noteworthy. Google seems to agree with this fact. GRider 21:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep RaD Man was one of the most influential artists of the text art scene. Not only is ACiD Productions the oldest ASCII/ANSI group still around, it is the best known. RaD Man FOUNDED this group. Reason enough in my mind anyway for him to remain. Alkivar 01:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuppets annoy me. Ambi 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Non-notable. --Jerzy(t) 13:54, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
  • Keep, M with ACiD Productions. Useful information in this article. +sj+ 16:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This article has more fluff than content and this discussion has more heat than light. Most of the verifiable, encyclopedic content relates to ACiD Productions. Merge it there and redirect. --Michael Snow 17:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, albeit with reluctance arising from my distaste for being on the same side as some of the completely inappropriate comments offered above. I don't agree with the idea of waiting a few years to see if this subject area becomes notable. I'm fine with documenting ephemera for historical purposes. It would be nice to have ready online access to, say, fads of the 1920s. My first inclination was to agree with Michael Snow about merge & redirect, but it seems that RaD Man (whom I'd never heard of until I saw this listing) has some activities outside ACiD that are worth noting. This article certainly needs cleanup, though. JamesMLane 04:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taifun

edit

Advertising Dismas|(talk) 09:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please delete: carsten Dohrmann

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Davidson

edit

Fake? there's only one hit for "Chris Davidson" "Davidson Enterprises" on google. [8] --WP Talk 09:56, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Dumbledore

edit

I automatically assume that a page called Raj Dumbledore created by User:Rajdumbledore must be vanity. But makes slightly more claim to notability than the average so I had better check before userfying it. -- RHaworth 10:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marketplace intimacy

edit

Advertisement, Original Research, originally sigged with a hotmail address, this was removed. Usrnme h8er 11:06, 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 Speedied. android79 13:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StreB Company

edit

Patent nonsense! Stephenb 11:18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Discounting Duderon (total of 2 edits), I would normally pretty much rely on an 8d-3k to be a delete. However, A Man In Black has comprehensively rewritten the article and persuaded at least one former deleter to be a keeper. In this case, I'm not sure there is a consensus given the new information in the article, and I think that VfU would be likely to undelete+relist this. A renomination may be appropriate for the sake of clarity. -Splashtalk 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Age Forums

edit

Non notable website, vanity piece. Both forum and main site rank low on big-boards and Alexa respectively, considerably below IGN Message Boards and Gamefaqs message boards which are arguably more relevant. Stx 11:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 MERGE to Frédéric Chopin. -Splashtalk 00:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tekla Justyna Krzyżanowska

edit

No other notability other than being Chopin's mother. Should be merged with Chopin article Mandel 12:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Lemos

edit

Fiction. — Mateo SA | talk 12:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Zakhov Mission

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected by Friday Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XML document

edit

I'm not even sure what this is, but I don't think it's Wikipedia worthy. Kushboy 16:09, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Levy

edit

President of Ryerson University, but otherwise non-notable, and certainly not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat theory

edit

A google search on the term shows no matches related to the assertion made in article, appears to be original research CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this before creating the new page and found a number of references such as

http://www.wuplet.com/thesis/chapter3.htm http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/travel/history.htm

which seem to suggest that this info is not totally without foundation. Suggest not deleting. It does need more content though - at least some references.- Unsigned by user:86.134.30.182

IMO information should not be deleted simply because it is "obscure". On the other hand, if this really is a one-person coinage not recognised by anyone else then I agree.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JP Dons

edit

Non-notable fantasy football league. Google search showed a single relevant match. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PIPOL

edit

Non-notable chat forum. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 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 speedy delete. --Blackcap | talk 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (Note: The reason I have my name here is because the "end of AfD" tags were not placed by the deleting admin, JoJan, not because I am an admin or because I closed the AfD). --Blackcap | talk[reply]

TJ Foscolo

edit

Vanity. Kushboy 16:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedy deleted by me JoJan 17:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Monsters

edit

nn zine vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nn zine-cruft. Sounds good 'n' worthless. --Blackcap | talk 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't use the term cruft on AFD, it's biting the newcomers, and many people find it offensive. And, please don't call peoples work worthless. --Phroziac(talk)  23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:GAFD#Shorthands: "-cruft (for example, 'fancruft', 'gamecruft' or 'forumcruft') is shorthand for 'This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc.'" Bollocks to not using "cruft." It's useful, and it's even listed in the Guide. For one thing, newcomers who vote on AfDs votes are rarely counted and are often assumed to be sockpuppets, so the "don't bite the newbies" argument is simply trite and unhelpful. When was the last time you saw a newcomer vote on AfD have a vote that was actually grounded in WP policy and was worthy of being counted? Never, for me. Second thing, if a newcomer can't be bothered to read the instructions to AfD, which includes in its glossary such terms as "nn" and "cruft," then that's their problem, not the person who uses those terms. It's shorthand so that we don't waste our time writing out the same old arguments over and over again in longhand. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I am entirely in agreeance with not biting newbies, and go out of my way to apologize for and explain misunderstandings. But saying not to use established, easily understood terms that apply perfectly to the article in question to avoid offending the writer of an article that doesn't belong here is too much. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Oswax 17:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability beyond small local group of fans. I know Athens, GA has many kinds of musicians, but is there really enough Folk punk there to keep a zine going? Barno 18:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it isn't a permastub, *AND* is verifiable. --Phroziac(talk)  23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- sounds like a high school magazine. Non-notable. --Maru (talk) 00:13, 28 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul heroux

edit

All that is claimed in notability is being a martial arts instructor and working for a think-tank. Not notable? DJ Clayworth 17:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PooHate

edit

I cannot believe I actually wasted seconds of my valuable time googling for this scatological idiocy. It's not total nonsense, surprisingly enough, but it's not notable, thank god. DS 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN-Just silly rubbish. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:49 PM EST Yeah, i kind of got the wrong idea of what this site is supposed to be about. At first i thought it was an official encyclopedia, then i saw random stuff on here, so thought id post about a joke metal band. Obviously this is Wiki Mis-use so yeah delete away. I like this whole site tho. Some funny stuff. Cheers, TC PooHate

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 COPYVIO. It's been on there for >7 days, so I've deleted per that process. -Splashtalk 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Buskee

edit

Hoax or joke (note the call letters). No relevant Google hits. The actual KBOR is in Brownsville, Texas. --Michael Snow 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, I actually used to live there, and believe me, Robert Buskee is very real. The KBOR thing is wrong though, I can't remember the exact station name. Buskee is a very old man on a very small radio station. I doubt he even knows what the internet is. But you have to take my word, he is painfully real. I took the KBOR thing off

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion theory

edit

Original research. Note that a page with this name was already deleted; see its AfD page. Delete. Chick Bowen 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this significantly the same as the old version? If it is, then it can be speedy deleted. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, it appears significantly different than past versions enough that were I asked, I'd say it is not a speedy candidate. No vote personally. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I nominated the old article for deletion because it was being maintained as an ad for somebody's self-published book. This is in its early stages and lacks references, but seems in form at least to be an attempt to provide the historical account that I hoped would materialise, once the old article was deleted. Good start, I see no original research. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that I don't think this is by the same author as the earlier article. I still think it's original research. The first sentence is a tipoff, but the main problem seems to me to be that what brings everything the article covers together is only the author's POV that none of it is convincing. So while I appreciate your relief, Tony, that this is better than what was here before, I believe this one should be deleted for the same reason the other one was: i.e., a truly encylopedic article is more likely to be written from scratch. Please note that this is not my field--I'm responding to the article's tone and structure, which I believe are fundamentally flawed, rather than my own point of view on the subject. Chick Bowen 21:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Keep the Hilgenberg part only. The cosmology part is original research or a very bad and heterodox re-phrasing of stuff better explained in our Category:Cosmology articles. Small wonder, that no references are given. --Pjacobi 19:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pjacobi is exactly right. Tony, you might wish to reconsider your vote, since keeping bad content like this when there is a better existing alternative is poor practice and detracts from WP as a whole. Delete. Dottore So 19:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A total piece of crap, and an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Quale 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is better covered in other articles. --Carnildo 21:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. original research combined with materials covered elsewhere Salsb 01:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be better veiled than the last version, but that doesn't excuse its flaws (per Chick Bowen, Pjacobi, Carnildo, and Salsb). -Throbblefoot 04:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The theorist is forced to re-explain almost all of physics..." Perhaps this should not be done in an Wikipedia Article. -- Andy.we 07:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Protect from Creation: OR, article on same subject already deleted. Wikibofh 16:24, 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 Speedy deleted by --Doc (?) 20:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Turbine Revolution

edit

Non-notable band, page describes events in the future. Maybe speedy as vanity/nonsense? Ilmari Karonen 18:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for sure. I don't see a way to speedy it other than by common sense, though. Must be meant as a joke. Even if not, there's nothing verifiable in the article. Friday (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'm ready to use common sense and speedy this as patent nonsense. Anyone object? --Doc (?) 20:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's obviously junk, but it's not "patent nonsense" as narrowly defined by that criterion. I encourage people to pretend that CSD stands for "common sense deletion" in cases like these, though. It's possible someone could undelete it just to make a point, but I hope that doesn't happen. We would all do well to remember that the rules are here to help us make an encyclopedia, and doing what's right for the project should be a higher priority than exactly following a rigid process. Friday (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take that as a no, use common sense, IAR, and see if anyone wants to make a WP:POINT over this crap --Doc (?) 20:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World War II atrocities in Poland

edit

Non-factual basis (not a statement that facts do not exist, just that there seems to be no interest in prestenting them), impossiblity of presenting the word "atrocity" from a NPOV 131.183.99.132 19:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep - if the anonymous user needs sources for the article, he/she should simply ask for them on the article's talk page. Halibutt 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep but cleanup. For a start, many of the Jews murdered in Auschwitz etc were also Polish. "Polish" is a nationality, not a racial classification. Vizjim 20:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and move the name of the article and the article are pure POV Dudtz 9/29/05 5:04 PM EST

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easily

edit

Non-notable domain name registrar. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D NN Fawcett5 14:40, 28 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 DELETE, and gargle with mouthwash after recovering. -Splashtalk 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Mix

edit

Delete; article consists solely of a drink recipe. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:35, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 REDIRECT to Selectavision. Whilst it doesn't matter in this particular case, generally one should not redirect the article during an AfD unless the target article then becomes the subject of the AfD. -Splashtalk 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CED_Videodisc

edit

Redundant with Videodisc and Selectavision, bad fmt, factually inaccurate (LaserDisc did not fail, it was brought out by JVC at the same time as RCA brought out Selectavision). Seems like a weak fork attempt. Keith D. Tyler 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the creator has issued a new version, which was not so much a correction as a rewording. It's still factually inaccurate, and now has spelling and grammar errors. And it's still redundant with Selectavision, which it somehow suggests is a different topic. - Keith D. Tyler 05:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going ahead with a redirect, which doesn't require waiting. - Keith D. Tyler 18:05, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. I'm going to exercise a little discretion here and presume that the debate on the website below also has applicability here, given the comments of the nominator and only other participator. -Splashtalk 00:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Stewart of Ehowa

edit

Non-notable vanity page. Fawcett5 19:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC). If it is deleted, then the accompanying image Image:Ernie Stewart of Ehowa.jpg should also be nuked. Fawcett5 20:11, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehowa

edit

Delete - Non notable blog, probable vanity creation of its non-notable founder Ernie Stewart of Ehowa also up for Afd. Fawcett5 20:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Itcamecrashing.

edit

Apparent vanity page for an unsigned Ohio band; also an orphan. User:Wlmaltby3's only other contributions thus far are a second page (now a redirect) for It Came Crashing. Nae'blis 20:46, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 COPYVIO, being dealt with over there. -Splashtalk 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mouawad

edit

Vanity article, doesn't seem to be a copyvio Secretlondon 21:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Control speach and debate

edit

Non-notable organization, basically just advertising. And misspelled too. Ilmari Karonen 21:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Mitra

edit

Borderline notability. Seems to be mostly famous for having a famous daughter. KeithD (talk) 21:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. Still not much discussion, but has the two-thirds and no-one has made any effort to defend it, apart from Jaysuchris (who only has 35 edits, with 17 in Wikipedia: space). -Splashtalk 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beantown productions

edit

Non-notable company, advertisement, no context, only contribution by this user. Maybe speedy as A1? Ilmari Karonen 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not enough eyes, relisting --Doc (?) 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Keep--Doc (?) 22:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist's Wager

edit

Article gives no description if this is even an accepted philosophy worthy of an article. No source mentioned. Antley 21:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Antley 21:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pascal's Wager, which this is based on. I can see somebody searching along these lines. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search seems to suggest it's used in a sufficiently wide scope. However with a cursory glance, I couldn't find the original source for it. The article needs vast improvement, but seems worthy of inclusion. KeithD (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... if sources can be found. --Maru (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Redirect per Lomn above. Nae'blis 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs cleanup, but is definitely encyclopedic. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why this should be deleted. It is an entirely valid article. I also think that it should be kept as a seperate page from Pascel's Wager, as they are two different arguments.Schrodingers catsup
  • Keep. I very distinctly remember covering this in professor Kenneth Rogerson's Philosophy of Religion class in 1995 or 1996 - I suspect it was in the text. I recall reading a rather extended version of this argument that suggests that, with all the religions in the world, it's impossible to know which one is right. You could work your whole life to be a good Episcopalian only to learn that God wanted you to be a Presbyterian (or a Catholic; or a Buddhist), therefore the wager is between devoting all your energy to a faith that has a one-in-as many faiths as there are chance of being true, or spending the time on yourself and hoping that if there is a God he's not picky. -- BD2412 talk 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum - I think this may be under the wrong name, or under a generic name. I googled for "response to Pascal's Wager" and found (among other things) this website which ascribes such an argument to Voltaire (should be easy to confirm), and this one, which ascribes it to a George H. Smith, and consequently calls it Smith's Wager. -- BD2412 talk 02:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Vote changed to merge with Pascal's Wager - information is happiest when most fully in context, and responses to an argument are happiest when they are close to the argument to which they respond. Besides, there is already a healthy amount of information on criticism of Pascal's Wager in that article, including Voltaire's response mentioned above. Smith's should go there as well. -- BD2412 talk 02:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pascal's Wager per BD2412, but add redirect per Lomn. Bikeable 15:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge inherently includes a redirect (has to so that the authorship info in the original can be preserved). Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pascal's Wager and find sources. Jules LT 18:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It taught me a lot, short as it is. I came to the article from research on Pascal's wager, and in particular the moral and philosophical objections to it, and commentary upon it during the last 3 1/2 centuries. This article is clearly relevant. Furthermore, questions about Pascal's wager are clearly relevant today. For example, every time someone is faced with a chain letter, the basic underpinning seems to me to be a disguised or variant form of Pascal's wager. Atheist's wager is not often cross referenced on the web, and Wikepedia should retain it as a separate cross referenced heading. Sigoldberg1 October 2, 2005
  • Keep I don't see the point of merging it with Pascal's wager.Amren (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. Hermione1980 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Kentucky

edit

This article is offensive, not factual, contains no useful information poorly written. Not suitable for Wikipedia. (preceding unsigned comment by 71.28.250.92 (talk · contribs) )

  • Comment. Completed badly formed AfD by adding section header to this page and adding AfD template to article in question. No opinion. --GraemeL (talk)

This page contains non factual and insulting text regarding the diet of a specific state. The tone is in itself derogatory. The article states that Kentucky consumption of White Castles is the highest in the nation. There are only White Castles in 3 cities in the state and the states population is over 4 million. Burgoo ( which I had never heard of) is served in Owensburg and I had to get that off the internet. It may contain some truth but it still has a derogatory tone to it. Also is this article suitable to Wikipedia? If there is an article concerning this states presumed diet then wouldn't there have to an aricle concerning every states cuisine?Dakota 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on purported native

The article as I first found has changed greatly. The original was different in title and tone. I am not a "purported native" of Kentucky. I am not from Kentucky but have lived here 5 years. I am the one who ask for that deletion. I just don't think it is worth time spent for pursuit. I give up and think I will write a Cinncinnati, Ohio cuisine article. -Dakota 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, if you start an Ohio one don't forget Wendy's --Rakista 10:29, 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 speedy delete, is an obvious hoax/fake person/whatever. --Phroziac(talk)  23:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kelly Manzarik Smith

edit

Umm, what? How can he have protested against Hitler when he was born in 1945? No google hits. Thue | talk 22:18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE --Doc (?) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny ruckus

edit

Non-notable comic, vanity, orphan, very short, borders on WP:CSD A1. Ilmari Karonen 22:24, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE--Doc (?) 22:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WESH

edit

Non-notable message board.--Shanel 22:24, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE--Doc (?) 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cross and Our Calling

edit

Unimportant statement. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE --Doc (?) 21:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Van Dyke

edit

Nn professor. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE --Doc (?) 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Koyzis

edit

Non-notable. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 KEEP--Doc (?) 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cook

edit

Non-notable. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE --Doc (?) 23:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert M. Wolters

edit

Non-notable boring professor. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:24, 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 Speedied. android79 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Burisch

edit

This article is nonsense, but is it notable nonsense? -- Kjkolb 23:39, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ailinel

edit

Non-notable band, local shows only, no CDs —Wahoofive (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Insufficient contributions - relisting --Doc (?) 21:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_27&oldid=1234118769"