Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bob247 (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 22 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 21 >

Purge server cache

November 22

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ask? 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Jester

Unwikified, uncategorised, reeks of vanity page. - SoM 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, thus default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diary-X

This was previously nominated by an anon, voted on and deleted. The article had been rewritten to assert notability several hours prior to the closure of the previous discussion, so the AfD was contested and overturned. Relisting for the sake of completeness.

Previous AfD Discussion
Notes about Diary-X in the media

Unusual nomination with low participation. Extending to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Brotherhood

Absolute nonsense about nothing, seemingly a claim of a group of assassins existing as a splinter group, and probably too much text to be classified as speedy delete nonsense. Harro5 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Louis

This is not a Star Wars character. "General Louis" is not mentioned in any novels, even though it seems he was pretty prolific—according to the article, he was friends with Anakin Skywalker, after all, and he did battle Luke Skywalker, although this event is not mentioned in any novels. Furthermore, his compatriot, General Maximus, seems to be a fan-made rip-off of the character from Roman history, specifically Russell Crowe's character in the film Gladiator. I see no evidence this character exists in the Star Wars universe, and the way it is written strongly suggests that it is a character from fan fiction. – Mipadi 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) PJM 18:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this article is real because the novels are in process; it's a gap between revenge of the sith and the clone rebellion. why are you doings this? give me time i got it from a story written by a friend who wants to be part of star writers; he wants to be a writer an his noval is base on Darth vader and his master conquering the galaxy planet by planet so please don't delete this because i'm a fan of star wars and a menber of wikipedia, i've read his noval and i think it's a good one it explains what happen between order 66 and how the death star's (not fully completed) first role in the Empire his noval is call (dark times a galaxy falls) it's about the empire extending it's power and also referring to how some jedi's turning to the darkside but not becoming a sith apprentice.when his noval is finished i hope it hit stores. oh if you don't mine i would like to send a copy to you when it is finish so that you can read it yourselves and tell us if it make sense six poeple who aren't fans said that it's a good book and should be published i agree so when it's finish we would like to show you if intrested edit this page and say (yes) or (no).

  • We don't believe that this is an actual character in an official novel. Fan-created characters are almost never notable enough to warrant inclusion. If you could cite a souce saying this is from official literature, than I would change my vote. Currently, the article doesn't indicate where the character is from. -LtNOWIS 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Famous People

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure eddy

Pretty much unverifiable, claims this is a character in a series of books, I can't find mention of these books (title, character, etc.) on Amazon, Google or Newsgroups. The only thing I found that was even close was a blog entry (that's only available now via its Google cache [1]) and that just indicates the guy is thinking about writing a book with that character. So yeah... seems like a hoax or joke. --W.marsh 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spuzzy

Seems to me to be NN, did a google search and didn't getting anything on the first few pages aside from one from the website mentioned in the article. Falls End (T, C) 00:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (to BJAODN). Owen× ☎ 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsteria

Nonsense page about rodent royalty: "The Royal House of Hamsteria is an instituition created in 1999 to recognise hamsters. All Syrian hamsters are related and this particular family is a symbol of Hamsters worldwide." Calton | Talk 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never even typed the stupid article! -Hamster1108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster1108 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mullet Malicia

Band fails WP:MUSIC, currently planning their first album release. 66.191.124.236 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so article kept. Johnleemk | Talk 11:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs

Subtrivial listcruft! Nominations 1 and 2 were obviously misconceptions of the article's unsalvageability.

  • I for one don't consider two months and four months ago to be "very recent", and I don't consider the nominator's reasons for nominating the article a third time grounds for disregarding the content of the article, which is crufty to the max. Bad articles should not escape deletion because of technicalities. Reyk 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first, let me express that my 'Keep' also applies to the article itself. It is maintainable, noteworthy, and verifiable. It also has undergone lots of work from many editors. You honestly don't consider two months to be recent? Would you renominate articles that have already survived a AfD every two months? It would be one thing if the (unsigned) nominator presented new evidence, or someone how convinced us that the previous voting process was flawed, but they have done neither. Turnstep 13:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. The anonymous user has not provided any new reasons why the list should be deleted, so I'll have a go at it. Firstly, I don't think Nom 2 should be given any weight at all. The only rationale for keeping the list was that the article had been put up for deletion only a month previously. There has been no discussion of the merits of the article itself since August. If two months is stretching it, three months is surely OK. Secondly, as of now the vote stands at 15-9 in favour of deletion, which indicates that opinion has swung heavily since August. My guess is that my fellow Wikipedians are getting fed up with the proliferation of listcruft in Wikipedia and, in my view, rightly so. There's obviously strong opinions on both sides and I think there needs to be discussion about it. Reyk 02:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite that bad. Sometimes deleted articles get recreated when more notable content is available, and are not necessarily speedied, or even deleted at all. Still, I do think it is somewhat cynical to renominate articles for deletion that have survived multiple prior rounds. It's a rare case (and not this one by a long shot) where the prior notability of a topic suddenly vanishes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not that bad in practice, but how would one necessarily know that anyway, given the current size of Wikipedia? Anyway, it doesn't change the principle. I know that if I were an admin here (I am at Wikiquote), I'd feel completely justified SDing such an article — perhaps even obligated to, since I might disagree with the original deletion and feel it necessary to SD per policy to ensure neutral policy practice. (Of course, WP is vastly larger than WQ, so perhaps admins don't feel similarly compelled here.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your observations make two mistakes. 1) they assume votes are partisan between two camps - they are not, many of us vote on merits not preconceptions. 2) if we are talking of 'institutional imbalance' then remember that the 70% threshhold for deletion (30% to keep) would be a greater conterbalance. --Doc ask? 19:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I'm sorry but I cannot follow your reasoning here, at all. (1) votes are "partisan" if you describe those parties as "those who vote delete on the merits" and "those who vote keep on the merits". Besides, I cannot see in what way JeffQ's argument relies on the "mistake" that votes are partisan. (2) Comparing the 30:70-thing with JeffQ's don't-keep-renominating-thing is comparing apples with fishwives. Surely it's obvious that your chances of getting a 70% vote on one occasion increase in proportion to the number of times you put the matter to the vote. For what it is worth, my view is that:
  1. Broadly, editors should respect a keep consensus at AfD and not renominate articles they do not like in the hope of a more sympathetic crowd at AfD on the next occasion;
  2. Wikipedians should be far more careful than usual in voting to delete pages like this one which are long-established and have attracted a lot of editors.
Just my 2p worth. AndyJones 13:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear way to separate "partisan" from "non-partisan", as anyone following politics can readily observe. Most passionate arguments stem from basic ideas that have some merit within a society; otherwise one or the other side would feel too uncomfortable to speak up. Many people who claim non-partisanship do so because they refuse to accept the other side as rational. Sometimes this is true, but usually it is emphatic rhetoric to demean opponents. Consider how dismissive and even mean some of the current votes here are ("obviously misconceptions", "stupidly unmaintainable", ridiculing with "ridiculous") and compare them to Wikiquette guidelines. (And what the heck is a "proto-Hornby"? I don't know whether the list editors should be flattered or insulted by this. It would have been nice if JJay had taken advantage of the medium and added a link to whatever was meant by this! :-) As for AndyJones's idea about respecting keep consensi, I agree in general but acknowledge that we should be able to renominate articles after some reasonable time, because situations and the mood of the community can change over time. But rapid-fire renomination is an abuse of the process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. why wasn't this closed long ago? (non-admin closure) L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Leben

Okay, I originally flagged this as a cleanup-verify about two weeks ago, but seeing as there's been no further verification (and since I can't verify it with Google myself), I'm moving it here because it sounds pretty much like a hoax. So, Delete per nom. -LichYoshi 01:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) See my vote below. -03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - people not cleaning it up in time is not a valid reason for deletion. Trollderella 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But inability to verify clearly is - giving this two weeks grace was overly generous in the first place. Trollderella, inclusionism is a perfectly valid response to nominations, but please consider WP:V as a fundamental requirement for voting for keeping any article. (oh, delete btw) --Doc ask? 10:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be other books called Mein Leben (My Life is a generic enough name) but none of them are notable. Otherwise we'd have known about them, no? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so article kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beurger King Muslim

Utterly non-notable French halal fast-food. The article was promptly deleted when it appeared on fr:. _R_ 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he supports notability as a criteria for inclusion. [3] [4] Jimbo appears to endorse a criteria of verifiable notability. Bwithh 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This seems to be a single restaurant, not a chain. fr.wikipedia is right to delete it; this article can never be anything but a stubby "This restaurant exists!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if anywhere, it should exist on the fr: wikipedia. Appears to be a fairly new single-location fast-food restaurant. Delete for now, but if it expands, then an article wouldn't be out of the question, I guess. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supprimer there are plenty of restaurants which copy Western restaurant franchises (as well as actual Western restaurant franchises) in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world (Kentucky Fried Chicken in Pakistan for instance). This is purportedly the first in France, but that's not really notable. delete as non-encyclopedic content Bwithh 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It seems to have gotten the attention of the BBC, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times (no cite, I read the article in the International Herald Tribune). Whether this makes it notable, just a media flash-in-the-pan, or a short-shelf-life handy-dandy journalistic metaphor is an open question. Also, 908 Google hits for the exact phrase. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per fr: deletion. NSLE (讨论+extra) 05:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Media attention does not ipso facto make a subject encyclopedic. Eusebeus 07:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irrelvant, unencyclopedic --RaiderAspect 10:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, being the first of such a restaurant in France is notable in my opinion especially with the press the Muslim community got there. Still, since it's one single place, it's borderline. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Islam in France (or, better yet, an article that deals with the context I have discussed below) or Keep as a fork for a more elaborate article. This is getting attention in the European press and I could see someone googling this term or even searching for it in wikipedia. People writing term papers on the general topic might need information on this specific item. this is part of a backlash against Coca-colonialism among European Muslims. I am not sure, however, that the individual restaurant is not notable enough for an article, but however the term is notable enough to be searched by some and merged by us into the before mentioned article. Youngamerican 17:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure folks in the US appreciate what this is, and what it means in Europe. Just my $.02. Trollderella 19:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Good point. Keeping this article around helps fight systemic bias on wikipedia and helps shed light on the frustrations felt by minority French Muslims. Many Americans feel that France has a coddling attitude towards those of Arab extraction due to the government's opposition to the Second Iraqi War. In reality, this could not be further from the truth. France has no form of affirmative action and many French Arabs are mired in unemployment and are victims of a form of unspoken racism. While one burger joint outside of Paris might not be notable in and of itself, the underlying social context is a valuable piece of the puzzle in gainging a grain of understanding of the racial crisis that has come to a head in modern French (and European) society. Youngamerican 20:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am European. Write about the underlying social context then rather than the feelgood slow news day burger joint story.Bwithh 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passed WP:CORP. Kappa 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep...i agreed entirely on Youngamerican's original vote of merge and redirect, but im also somehwat swayed by his later comment. but only somewhat. jfg284 you were saying? 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep Astrotrain 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per media attention and Youngamerican's point about CSB.Smerge with appropriate target. A Man In Black and RaiderAspect have convinced me, sort of. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better recipient of the smerging than Islam in France, which I don't think is the right place for this to end up. Does anyone know how large the restaurant is, or if there's multiple locations (doesn't sound like it, given when it opened, but still), or any other information? If it's transcended "restaurant" status and become a phenomenon or landmark, that'd make things different. The Literate Engineer 23:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite Youngamerican's points, I'm going to stick with delete. While this might deserve a mention/exploration in another article, especially if it's part of an overall trend, it doesn't deserve an article of it's own. --RaiderAspect 03:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cute play on words but not any more notable than arab-owned supermarkets in France that refuse to sell alcohol. Looks like more of a backlash to unemployment than to Coca-colonialism, particularly as Coca Cola features prominently on the menu. -- JJay 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm pretty sure they serve Mecca Cola, not Coca-Cola, but I will double check. Also, I'm going to add some context tomorrow when I have access to an internet connection that is not crash-tastic. Youngamerican 04:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am no longer going to add context to this article, since I am starting to feel that this entry should be merged into another article or kept as a fork. Youngamerican 14:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please do check, the French articles[[5]] I looked at all mentioned Coca Cola, but they could be wrong I suppose. Note as well that the owners have prominently stated that they are non-political and are trying to make money. As businessmen, they saw an open market niche for halal fast food, but rather than wanting to dismantle McDonald's, a la José Bové, they want to be McDonalds's. France, of course, representing one of McDonald's strongest international markets with high demand from all segments of the French population and no major competition except for Quick (restaurant chain) (Wendy's not present, Burger King withdrew years ago). I would be very cautious in reading Beurger King Muslim as a sign of anti-Americanism among Les Beurs, who celebrate American rap and the NBA. The real question, as stated by the nom, is why is Beurger King Muslim more significant for the English-speaking world than the French?-- JJay 08:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Thanks for the link to the French article. I was going on what I had heard in a news report a couple of months ago and could not find a citation either way in English, Spanish, or Dutch (the languages I could read. Just a quick point however; I never argued that the Beurs were "anti-American," but rather anti-globalization. These two terms are increasingly used interchangebly, which is somewhat misleading since, as you pointed out, many people that are opposed to the policies of the American government and MNCs are infatuated with the popular culture of the US. When pressed for an answer, even many Iranians, for example, will admit that they do not hate Americans, but rather the government and globalism. There are even Americans playing in the Iranian basketball league (no citation, but a search of the BBC will lead to the artilce. But I digress. As to the question of the French wikipedia's choice to delete their article, I fully respect their choice for their project, but I do not, in good faith, see how it bears on this particular discussion (see my user page for more on that), but I would, of course, welcome their imput on this discussion, if they so choose. I am, however, starting to lean back towards my "merge and redirect" vote as a result of the source you have provided, with the possibility of this article being recreated as a fork in the future if needed. I also see the logic of A man in Black's point about writing an article on the Euro-Arab trend of recreating elements of American popular culture without negative aspects of globalism. Does this sound like a good idea to others? What would be an appropriate title? Youngamerican 13:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further comment. The NY Times article [[6]], -where BKM's owner says It's business... We're here to make money- points out that this is not the first restaurant like this in France, the honor going to MkHalal in Lyon. -- JJay 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It would be good info for an article about Islam in France or as an example in an article about halal/zabiha food. --JuanMuslim 1m 00:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid topic --The Brain 11:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn local restaurant. MCB 21:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
on 17:22, 6 August 2005 he article which WAS about the French law forbiding the veil in state owned buildings and started it and here is how it looked then --The Brain 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the article from this page- anyone can see it by checking the original edit on article page. No need to paste it in here. -- JJay 15:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student Federalists

Unencyclopedic. 24.54.208.177 02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was a tough call, but it's been transferred to Wikisource and the remaining content would be better off in the Citizens for Global Solutions article. Thus, article kept because of no consensus to delete, but merged and redirected to Citizens for Global Solutions. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Vernon Declaration

Unencyclopedic. 24.54.208.177 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was tough call, but as there was no consensus to delete, article was kept. Due to a lack of encyclopedic material, however, I made the decision as an editor to redirect the article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Youth Statement

Unencyclopedic. 24.54.208.177 02:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of most famous people according to Google

Original Research, Listcruft, Non-encyclopedic, Useless article. Delete VileRage (Talk|Cont) 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bedleather

Probably a hoax (no relevant Google hits). Wikipedia is not a dictionary. mdd4696 03:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was an obvious consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders in 1863

Comment I don't feel too strongly on this, I just did one edit of it, but I can see how Bahais would be interested to know who the religious leaders were at this point in their history as Bahá'u'lláh did write to many of them.--T. Anthony 05:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's this deal called-Category:Lists of religious leaders by year. I have the current year on my watchlist. Outside of that I've mostly done years of significance in some respect.(For example years that fit during the period of World War II I about have "finished." Well each year in those is far from finished, but there is something for most of those years.--T. Anthony 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
When I wrote that this list implies the existence of dittos for 1864, 1865, etc., it simply hadn't crossed my mind that someone might actually be toiling away at it. I still think, it organised the wrong way - lists by religion, not year, would come to no more than a few dozen lists of useful information. The contents of the handful of pages I looked at are quite west-centred too - only popes and mormon leaders. -- Squiddy 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem. I've tried to improve that by putting links to the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and Dalai Lamas on the main page.--T. Anthony 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Commercial

Advertisement. Incorrectly tagged as speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was boldly and speedily redirected to Pet Rock by Aleph4. BD2412 T 18:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pet rock

A more complete article on the same topic exists at Pet Rock. This article has very limited information that is all contained in Pet Rock article. Nothing to merge in. ERcheck 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I managed to get logged out. Above vote is mine. - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davmo

Delete Page created by User:Davmo (Contribs | Talk) about self. Vanity / Ad it seems... VileRage (Talk|Cont) 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, right after I let the user know aabout it on thier talk page ;] Either way, i think they know now ;] --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 19:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Martinez

nn bank robber whose 15 minutes of fame are over. And what possible significance is it that her father lives in New Mexico? Or that the police confiscated a yearbook? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klezcore

Another imaginary music genre. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This, unfortunately, does really exist. It's pretty awful. If you dare, you can listen to some here. Peachlette 08:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Apologia

Apparent personal essay. Violates no original research. —Cleared as filed. 05:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight of dawn

NN card from the card game Magic:_The_Gathering Delete-- VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnumism

Non-notable religion. Only one hit on Google and that's for an Angelfire page that's not even working. Delete —Brim 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human bioacoustics

DO NOT DELETE - I have worked with Human BioAcoustics for several years now. As a mathematician myself, I am awed with the mathematics of Human BioAcoustics. The steps involved in doing a Vocal Profile are so logical or ‘BioLogical’ as we often say that I feel like I have solved a problem in mathematics when I have finished. The results obtained are outstanding. This truly is a magnificent science and should be supported and strengthened for the benefit of mankind. Sharlene Simmons ([email protected]) 8:40PM 24 Nov 2005.

DO NOT DELETE * Having recently taken training at Sound Health Inc, on the subject of Vocal Profiling and Human Bioacoustics, I am impressed with the research that was presented. I am amazed that frequencies produced by the voice can be analyzed to describe the state of the human body. This is very exciting research and needs to be expanded to broaden its impact on human well being. Neil Simmons PE ([email protected]) 8PM 24 Nov 2005

DO NOT DELETE - this work is among the most profound I have ever encountered. I have referred many patients to Sharry for Bioacoustic evaluation. She never ceases to amaze me and she has been ever so helpful to me, my practice and my patients. I am very thankful for her presence on the planet. Roman Chrucky, MD. Thanksgiving Day, 2005.


  • DO NOT DELETE My name is Lita Lee, Ph.D. I am a chemist and my work consists of enzyme nutrition, environmental health, organic nutrition and hormonal balancing. My website, www.litalee.com has many articles and information on these topics. I became certified as a BioAcoustics practitioner in 1998 by Sharry Edwards at Sound Health, Inc. So profound is her work that I dedicate a success story called Sound Bites in each of my To Your Health newsletters available free from my website. Since 1998, Ms. Edwards and I (and many other professionals including medical doctors, nurses, dentists, etc.) have worked closely together to combine the modalities of our diverse professions to produce incredible results that heretofore would have been unimaginable. I have personal experience using BioAcoustics in critical situations where no other help was available and these clinical results are posted on my website in my newsletters and in articles by Ms. Edwards and other practitioners. BioAcoustics is truly cutting edge research into a new future of "drugless self-healing." So, I am not surprised at any negative remarks, condemnations, etc., that would be posted here.

User: [email protected], 10 pm, November 23, 2005

  • Do Not Delete- One would think that an open source encyclopedia would have more open minds reviewing proposed entries. Perhaps the Wikipedia community should be less smug and take a closer look at the alternatives being castigated (the stub was offered, after all, for the alt-med category).

If Wikipedia becomes merely a sounding board for "quackbusters" and similar folk, it will lose any claim to inclusiveness. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her great defense of Speech, Thompson v Western States, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort." *** "We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information." *** "Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning that the drug had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."

So, you see, even the Government needs something more than uninformed prejudice before rejecting ideas. If the reviewers had experienced Ms. Edwards's research and its potential benefits, they might rethink their prejudices against her. They might discover that she is a skilled healer and teacher, with notable value to offer humankind.

I offered the original stub because I do admire her research and think it ought to be better known. Rather too often in the history of healing, those castigated as "quacks" were proven to have the seed of a new idea. Which one of you "deleters" have ever struggled to help another find healing: you can caste the first stone.

To respond to the specific allegations:

1. "Non-notable quackery" - Ms Edwards' research has been reported in a significant number of alternative venues, including Nexus Magazine, and her work was featured in 2004 in Health on the Edge - Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium by Larry Trivieri. In 2002, she was, as noted in the stub, given the O. Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award at Temple University. This award was given, at that same time, to ten other well known alternative wellness researchers, including six MDs and that beautiful mind, Dr. John Forbes Nash (another quack, perhaps?) Check it out at: http://www.lifespirit.org/se2002award.html

2. The "fake peer reviewed journal" is a real peer reviewed journal, with an advisory board that includes an MD and licensed audiologist. The first online edition is an expansion of a private research journal published since 1995. The Sound Health Research Institute is duly recognized and maintains a full ethics and peer review structure. It was precisely the "coming of age" of this modality that led to offering the stub in the first place.

3. "No supporting information" accusation is the result of a lack of willingness to see the research. Somewhat like the Cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Read the Nexus article, for example, at http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/decloakingpathogens.html --or don't read it. I wouldn't want your prejudices disturbed. They are so classic.

4. "Variation on e=mc2" - actually, this expansion of the formula, permitted by the normal rules of substitution, has been noted by others. It is not an example of tampering with Holy Writ. If e=mc2 and e=hv then . . .

5. The "it's wrong and it doesn't work" allegation offers no support other than prejudice. "It's wrong becasue I think it's wrong" is no argument.

6. The "appears to be a hoax" allegation shows an equal lack of thinking. It is soo easy to just go along with the heard, isn't it?

7. "Crackpot" is equally an unsupported ad hominum attack.

None of these objections have any intellectual merit and show an appalling lack of openmindedness. Shame on you all.

If Wikipedia deletes this stub, rather than, say, including an appropriate disclaimer ( such as, "The information in this stub has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration") for the sake of the prejudices of some members of the Wikipedia community, it is doing exactly what Justice O'Connor said is a bad thing to do. 

 User:[email protected] 15:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable quackery. The page helpfully mentions Ms Sharry edwards, M. Ed. eight times, thus also managing to be a vanity page as well. This emerging science is apparently supported by a fake peer-reviewed web journal whose first issue is October 2005. Wikipedia would be wise to wait a while. 66.191.124.236 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The "science" of human bioacoustics seems to have no supporting information except Edwards' own writings and the dodgy web journal mentioned above. That makes it unverifiable. My personal opinion is that Ms. Sharry Edwards M. Ed. is a crackpot, and that Human Bioacoustics is unverifiable because it is wrong and doesn't work, but that's neither here nor there.Reyk 06:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Crackpot. Robinh 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as garden variety pseudoscience. Ms. Edwards invented the term, created a research foundation dedicated to her own work, and worked out a variation on Einstein's E=mc squared equation in an effort to make it look authoritative. Her publications come with a legal disclaimer that her technique cannot diagnose any illness or condition, yet elsewhere she offers a long laundry list of things that she believes it could do. Shortly after 9/11 she claimed it could diagnose anthrax. Durova 17:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to strong delete in light of Ms. Edwards inserting a rambling essay above everyone's votes. Classic substitution, Ms. Edwards? It's meaningless substitution unless you demonstrate a loss of mass. If you claim that equation has any significance to analysis of the human voice then you're proposing new laws of physics. WP:Complete Bollocks. Durova 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to "strong delete" - Ms. Edwards did not post the "rambling essay about everyone's [sic] votes." I did. [email protected] is my email address, as can be easily ascertained by most any search engine. My name is Ralph Fucetola. I am a semi-retired lawyer who has volunteered to work with nonprofits like Sound Health Research Institute. I posted the original stub on Human Bioacoustics because, after 34 years representing people in the alternative healing world, I've come to the conclusion that Ms. Edwards is the real thing. That's called an opinion. You do seem a tad too concerned about this alternative research modality. My interest is to promote access to information about alternative "medical" research. What are your special interests?

I assert it is not inappropriate to respond to ad hominum and similar illegitimate attacks. The nature of such multiple unfounded attacks is that a response must be specific to each and therefore longer than any. I did not "ramble" - I composed an ordered response to scurrilous postings, with numbered paragraphs, even…

Wikipedia should be concerned about facts, not ad hominum opinions. The fact is that Ms. Edwards’ research originated a branch of the recognized science of Bioacoustics called Human Bioacoustics, a protoscience that is receiving increasing recognition by its peers. Therefore, it ought to have at least a stub in the alt-med category.

A meaningful discussion of the science behind HBA requires dialogue, not censorship. User:[email protected] 6:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. It is the poster's responsibility to meet Wikipedia article standards. You have failed these standards on many levels. The purported physics behind this proposal is unworthy of discussion. Einstein's equation applies to nuclear fission and fusion. This is completely unrelated to the working of the human body. It saddens me to see a sincere person waste so much effort due to a lack of basic science education. Durova 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharry edwards

  • Do not delete - Wikipedia should be concerned about facts, not ad hominum opinions. The fact is that Ms. Edwards’ research originated a branch of the recognized science of Bioacoustics called Human Bioacoustics, a protoscience that is receiving increasing recognition by its peers. Therefore, it ought to have at least a stub in the alt-med category. See my posting at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_bioacoustics

LifeSpirit Church is a duly recognized church that has worked with a number of nonprofits in the alternative healing world, helping them have a web presence and working to enhance their organizational structure and professionalism. We are happy to be considered "New Age" and our "expressive association" is quite clear from our web site - what does that have to do with Ms. Edwards anyway?

User:[email protected] 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity bio for the non-notable originator of the quackery Human bioacoustics. I don't think a Masters in Eduction is a very good credential for practicing medicine. 66.191.124.236 06:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The link on the Sharry edwards page for www.soundhealthresearch.org redirects to www.lifespirit.org/shri1.html.
  2. www.lifespirit.org is the “LifeSpirit Congregational Church,” a self-described “small group of incipient New Agers,” whose motto is “expressing our beliefs through our association.”
  3. You can become a “LifeSpirit Minister Practicioner” here: www.lifespirit.org/LCC-minister-application.htm
  4. The articles about Sharry Edwards say that her work has been published in the Journal of BioAcoustic Biology (JBAB), a “Peer Reviewed Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, bringing BioAcoustics to Life.” Website www.jbab.org. The website of JBAB says that is “Sponsored by Sound Health Research Institute, Inc.” As noted above, the Sound Health Research Institute website www.soundhealthresearch.org redirects to the LifeSpirit church website.
  5. Sharry Edwards is said to have received the New Scientist of the Year Award from The International Association of New Sciences.
  6. The LifeSpirit church website gives the website of the International Association of New Sciences as www.newsciences.org.
  7. The domain name www.newsciences.org redirects here, which says the domain name is for sale.
  8. A Google search for “International Association of New Science” receives 95 hits.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no consensus here, so to WP:CP it goes. -Splashtalk 00:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varadharaja Perumal Temple

copyright violation (probably non commercial)[7] but no original content. Only one real author 203.91.201.4 with a bad track record. Ben Aveling 10:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to low input. brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Has been extended and still received no support. -Splashtalk 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OUTTALINE

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) As it is I don't think this band meets WP:MUSIC, they have only one album and don't seem to have been on tour. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended due to no input. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Brunk

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson weingarten

Vanity bio JHMM13 06:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silence (movie)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A check on IMDB indicates that the movie is still in production and isn't due to be released until 2006. Not to mention, this article is devoid of content. Should be deleted until the movie is released. —Cleared as filed. 06:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is verifiable information available about this see [8] but article is currently a speedy delete candidate under Category A1 as a short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball unless evidence is presented, not merely that the movie is forthcoming (which Capitalistroadster has done) but that it is a film that is so important that it is interest now outside film-buff circles. For example, if the preparation for this film has been mentioned someplace like The New York Times or Time Magazine then I would agree that preparation for this film is encyclopedic now. Is it a huge bet-the-company gamble that will sink the film company if it's not a hit? Is it part of the new trend toward movies with a Christian subtext? Is there anything that makes it important prior to release? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peppino Gagliardi

An Italian singer. Was tagged as a speedy delete, but with 19,400 Google hits he appears to be notable. Can anyone provide the article with some context and content? u p p l a n d 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy(rapper)

Delete I don't think this person exists, and page consists only of an image!-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 06:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitel 618

Not an encyclopedia entry at all, rather a request to purchase. 129.33.1.37 06:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

*Delete Izehar 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicane Inveigle Award

Hoax, but not a very funny one. The name gives it away (chicanery and inveigle) as do the obscure location (Canary Islands) and the special leap year provision. Created along with Shakespearean Math and Les Michaels as part of an annoying marketing campaign. 66.191.124.236 07:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:67.185.71.34 blanked the reasons for nomination text, see here. Spondoolicks 17:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearean Math

The first part of this page is an annoying hoax as part of an ad campaign for UFO Phil, and related to the hoax Chicane Inveigle Award through the vanity bio Les Michaels. The second part is supposedly a not-yet-completed documentary. Even if the documentary is completed it will be of doubtful notability. 66.191.124.236 07:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Les Michaels

Hoax, not verifiable, vanity. Claims to have won a hoax award (Chicane Inveigle Award). Also claims honors from UCLA for independent filmmaking and work as a session guitarist on several (naturally unnamed) albums. Creator added hoax pages Chicane Inveigle Award and Shakespearean Math. 66.191.124.236 07:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Paikea

Non-notable musician / game show contestant. I can understand the winner of each country's idol getting their own article, but not the tenth runner up. Swamp Ig 07:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per CSD A3. --Titoxd(?!?) 03:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

System ScreenSaver

Nominated for speedy delete, but I am not sure that it actually fits. In any case, spam. Speedy delete if appropriate, otherwise simple delete. --Nlu 07:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Substitute (cricket). Owen× ☎ 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute fielder

This is a dictionary definition, I don't think there is enough for a complete article on it. - Akamad 07:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muniruddin Ahmed

400+ hits on Google, though I confess it's possible his name spelled natively could turn up more hits– but it looks like self-promotion to me. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific northwest shop

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry - Akamad 07:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (per this admin's interpretation of WP:CSD) --Nlu 08:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron schneider

Non notable bogus no googles.-- Dakota t e 07:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was unanimous agreement to keep Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diecast

Article contains information on 2 different subjects, both of which are well covered in other articles: Casting and Die-cast_toy Kevin 08:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, then. It can also mean (of course) a rolling of dice. BD2412 T 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess another disambiguation page won't hurt. Kevin 23:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete nonsense/vandalism. -Doc ask? 10:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidey poo

Appears to be fake and is certainly unverifiable. The user's only contribution. Found while rummmaging through database dumps. Sigh. William Pietri 08:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so copyvioed material removed and article replaced with stubbish material. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tippler

at least a few paragraphs of copyright violation, possibly more [10] Halal 09:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per CSD A8. --Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zurn Commercial Brass

advertisement, promotional

* This is a copyvio. See: [11] --Halal 21:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so article kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zurn

advertisement, promotional

  • I just wanted to add Zurn on here because you have other companies, like Kodak, etc. I didn't see anything wrong with that. Zurn is over a century old and is a reputable plumbing manufacturer. If you people want to exclude Zurn, fine. But if you do you have also destroyed my faith in Wikipedia, which I have promoted and shared with anyone who would listen to me.
If you have a problem with Zurn, why do you still have other companies listed on your site? Isn't that a little crooked to allow some and not others? I do not work for Zurn, but I do know of them quite a bit through my business here in Florida. My intent was merely to provide an informational article on the company. Why is this being done? Do you not have links to a company's website on other articles? I can list a few if you'd like.
I'm sorry but I just don't see how this is fair or right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.45.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The problem with this article is not that Zurn is a company (just like Kodak) and that companies don't deserve articles. The problem is that the article as written is overly promotional in nature, and is mostly a copy/paste from Zurn's website, making it a copyright violation. If you want to save the article, it needs to be rewritten to explain why Zurn is an important plumbing company (assuming that it is), how Zurn's products work, a little about the history of the company, etc., and remove any unsubstantiated claims (e.g., "one of the largest plumbing products packages in the world"). If Zurn really is over 100 years old (and didn't just acquire an older company to assume their incorporation date), they should indeed have an article, but this isn't it. --Stephen Deken 22:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - I just spoke with Phil Pedano in Zurn's marketing dept. The material in this article is ok to use. Sheesh. lol If it's that big a deal I'll delete it. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKough (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. JKough, this article is perfectly salvagable; don't delete it just because it's on AfD! I've rewritten the article to read more like an encyclopedia article and I strongly encourage the above editors to re-evaluate it. It's still a stub, and it could probably use more polish, but it's worth keeping. --Stephen Deken 19:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thank you. It does sound a lot better! I appreciate the help. --Jessica Kough


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Backflow Preventers

advertisement, promotional

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so article kept. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve glove

Stub about a piece of technology used by a 1,000 strong group of genetically altered men in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Too insignificant to be merged into Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). I would consider a merge into Imperial Fists as a secondary option to deletion, but personally feel that this level of 40K trivia is not required on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 10:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the original creator of this article and I can see your point. I felt the process of the torture was more of a prominent issue than its relation to the Warhammer universe. I wouldn't be sad to see it go, particularly as its reference is only based in the outsourced novel and not the tabletop game, it was more of a test write. Therefore I too would recommend it for Deletion. Daisjun 03:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (ie Keep) Izehar 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian_comma

The article is based solely on a very confused passage in a book, making it unclear what musical interval an "Arabian comma" is supposed to be, and whether this term is even in real use among music theorists. There are also doubts about the accuracy of other statements in the article. See the Talk page for much discussion of this. --Zundark 11:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Johnston (graphic artist)

I don't think he's notable enough to merit an article. Ignoring the Vietnam stuff which is almost certainly a hoax as it is not mentioned on his bio at Bigart (the only mention I found of him on the web), his art career is genuine but not exactly earth-shattering. A quote from the Bigart bio sums it up I think: "His artwork with major companies in the Food, Drink & Leisure industries is extensive." So he does decorative, tasteful work which is hardly ground-breaking or influential. Spondoolicks 12:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness

Copyvio, text lifted from http://www.onkindness.com/, largely an advert for that site. If rewritten it would be a dictionary definition, so better on wictionary. Thanks/wangi 12:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nn-bio/blanked by creator. --GraemeL (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Budden

Delete because it's completely untrue. Written by anonymous vandal. Stephen Turner 12:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pikes Buses

I don't think that this article should be at Wikipedia, since it's only a local bus company. Furthermore the article is very short, and expanding it will probably end up into adding irrelevant information. Having said this, I propose to delete this. -- SoothingR(pour) 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The newts

Delete as there is no sign of notability for this band, in the article or that I could find on the internet. In addition to this, they do not conform to the standards on WP:MUSIC and the editing style is clearly not at Wikipedia levels. The article also contains deliberate falsifications, such as the bit about the Swansey [sic] music festival being the most 'famous and appreciated' Robdurbar 13:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleteas an attempt to communicate. --GraemeL (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FC Karat Baku

Delete - seems to be an application to play at the club, not an article -- Gurch 13:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOID GENERATOR

Non-notable band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stack No. 2 - Zebedee

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photokaki

Advertisement of a web site. Alexa rank: 1,923,619 Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erfawn Akhtar-Khavari

Beside over 1,000,000 photographs of airplanes [14], I have found many other references on the Web Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rspc

A google search for RSPC (and RSPC IBM) found nothing relevant. Perhaps the creator got the abbreviation wrong? Delete (possibly a candidate for speedy deletion) if a proper article exists; otherwise, move and keep as a stub. - Mike Rosoft 14:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original anonymous author has a reasonably good track record of edits in IBM-related articles, such as RS/6000. This is unsurprising, because the IP addresses used by the author are assigned to IBM EMEA. However, research (including a brief perusal of IBM's current product line) turns up nothing. My suspicion is thus that this is internal information that the company has not published, and is therefore unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Menace

this is not really a stub too small

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous. 7 delete, 5 keep/merge/redirect although I think that most of the arguments for deletion (neologism withut widespread usage) were never really answered. I am not sure at all whether any of this can or should be merged but without a clear consensus to delete outright, I will call this one a redirect to card magic and leave the history in tact for anyone who wants to merge some of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme card manipulation

This article has clearly been set up by a few people who have a private subculture going and early edits were extremely POV. Now the authors contradict themselves by adding the name of a noted magician Ricky Jay as an ECM master; he's gonna be surprised for sure! ECM people claim that what they do has nothing to do with magic; so magicians by their definition cannot be ECM. make your own mind up. It has been hurting my brain.Grroin 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. we let this one stay then every little clique is gonna have their promo page on wikipedia. Grroin 01:08, 22 November 2005 Grroin 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grroin. Turnstep 16:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 17:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extreme card manipulation" is, purportedly, the manipulation of a deck of playing cards merely as a feat of dexterity. However, searching reveals that the only people who believe that this concept exists are those who are selling their DVDs of "extreme card manipulation" — via the web site that the article used to link to. To contrast this with recognized skills: One can find prestidigitation discussed in a wide assortment of published works on magic by separate sources. One can find shuffling discussed in many separately sourced published works on card games, card tricks, and recreational mathematics. One can find separately sourced books and even take courses on juggling. There's nothing, apart from information from a single source, about "extreme card manipulation". This concept simply hasn't been accepted by anyone other than the people selling it. An encyclopaedia article will be warranted when other people, independent of its creators, go to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about this subject. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Vanity, neologism, self-promotion... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) P. S. No hits for extract phrase "extreme card manipulation" in Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the contradiction between magic and XCM. It's like calling "juggler" a magician who does only juggling in his performance, isn't it? As for the vanity/neologism argument, it has already been coined, and it is obviously (as this discussion shows) known outside their community, so perhaps a neutral article about this topic would be useful? If you don't like them, consider that deletion will have exactly the opposite effect - if someone hears the term, he will look up it in Google instead of Wikipedia, and will get only POV information about the subject. From what I have heard, there is a fashion lately to do "magic" consisting just of flourishes, so it needs to be called somehow anyway. Samohyl Jan 02:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just for using the word extreme (just kidding: actually per nom). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to card magic and make explicit mention of the fact it can be done as a display of dexterity. Just because XCM isn't magic, doesn't mean magicians can't practice it. In fact, a lot of magicians are pretty good at it because they can use their skills in magic card manipulation to help them in this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am persuaded by Uncle G above and am in emphatic agreement with him on all the points he raises. Absolutely no grounds to merge this article as there is insufficient disinterested, independent corroboration out there that this is a legitimate and accepted category. Would set a bad precedent for Wiki being used for self-promotion. The early entries on the page were blatantly POV and as Uncle G points out were patently self-promotional. I personally know three highly notable card magicians and what weighs for me even more than the discussion here is that they have never heard of this concept. And by the way - these magicians are every bit as skilled as so-called extreme manipulators. What this boils down to is that there appears to be a tiny (very tiny) sect out there who have decided that they don't want to be associated with the word magic or indeed its practice but just want to focus on flourishes; these are not grounds to justify a Wiki page. At most - and this would seem necessary even - exponents of extreme should simply be listed under a (newly created) list of highly rated exponents of flourishes and on the latter page. The term extreme card manipulation (or XCM) itself is so blatantly a neologism coined for self-gain purposes and is so incontrovertibly not in bona fide currency that one should forebear from giving it any oxygen of publicity that a Wiki mention confers. As some of you know on this page, I have made contributions to practically every magic related page on Wiki - but this one for me was beyond salvage. Look at the first ever edit - unabashedly crediting the alleged originator of the term and listing that person's instructional DVDs. I am amazed we haven't AfD before! Tiksustoo 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See User_talk:Dpbsmith#Extreme card manipulation for a reply to a query by MgM. I'm all for expanding Card magic —which currently illustrates the article with two examples of purely-decorative flourishes—but I don't see that the current article contains anything useful to merge, and I don't want Extreme card manipulation left in place even as a redirect unless it can be shown that it is term generally accepted within the magic community. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 22:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page. EddieSegoura 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Eddie, please format your vote properly, remember the asterisk before your vote. Seeing "nothing wrong" with a page is almost not good a criteria for a page to be kept. And now, my vote - merge per Durova. NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Imtiaz

Article about a real person that does not assert the importance of significance of its subject. Delete for the same reasons as Offtopic.com, the message board he administers. Fails the Google test, only results are related to OffTopic or are generally irrelevant. - N (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G4mers.com

Is this website very influential?--Esprit15d 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health Market Science

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen on the talk page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICT In Delhi District Courts

not an encyclopedia article

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Michaud

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen in this edit summary. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (artist)

I believe this page should be deleted for the following reasons:

1. Lack of notability: a Google search using the artist's birth name and pseudonym uncovers only one article; a broader search reveals 103 pages, but it does not appear that many of those (if any) are connected to the article in question.

2. The article is written poorly (while not quite unreadable, it's clearly written by a non-native english speaker) -- not, in itself, a reason to delete the article, but because the article is about an individual from a country that has few native English speakers, I suspect that it is a simple vanity page.

3. There is only one article (the Patch disambig page) that links to the article in question.

I'm generally a mild inclusionist, but this seemingly-vane article clearly lacks notability. Should be a simple decision. (Also, those Google searches were conducted both in any language, and in Finnish-only. Similar lack-of-results both ways.) AnDrew McKenzie 04:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast (newspaper)

The Beast (newspaper) (nominated by user:70.56.209.158 -- Dsol 18:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)) This article concerns a marginal, local 'zine type publication which is not consequential or influential enough for listing in an encyclopedia. Why do all journalists and bloggers get Wikipedia articles about their businesses--just because their trade is writing? Why isn't there a Wikipedia article about Al's Towing of Lackawanna? Also, who would go to a general reference work to find out about a publication like this, if they really didn't already know about it? I think entries like this generally amount to little more than schemes to inflate the Google rankings for whatever page, and increase website traffic. Eyeballs can be monetized, after all. I'm not saying it's an outright scam; all I'm asking is, what purpose does this type of article serve and who is behind it? Discuss amongst yourselves...[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Clear bad faith nomination. Vague objections amount to nothing without really providing a clear basis for questiong notability. This ip has about 5 edits, one of which was used to vandalize Mark Ames, co-editor of the other newspaper that Taibbi edited. As to the substance of the issue (though this nomination doesn't deserve it), I think the utility for the reader is obvious, especially for the reader having read a bit of/about the paper and wanting to know its history. The paper seems to enjoy fairly wide circulation, certainly has notable contributors, and is at least as notable as the many, many high schools which have articles. Note also that the article is a stub, and could probably be expanded with links showing syndication and discussion of Beast articles in larger media outlets. Dsol 10:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That would make a great slogan, "The Buffalo Beast: At least as Notable as Catholic Central High." As for my "vandalism" of the Mark Ames article, if you think adding a fact about the libel judgement against his newspaper, supported by a citation and a link to a reputable news source, is vandalism, then that just proves your own bias and bad faith. Maybe it's Dsol who doesn't deserve to be listened to. He probably works at one of these zines or is Mark Ames himself.
You know anyone can see your ip and past contributions, right 70.56.209.158? Here is a link to your vandalism edit. The edit didn't mention anything about libel, and included no link to a newspaper. Rather, it added the following quote to the article:
"That's it?? It must have been pretty easy to make a rep back then. That column's not even that great. Where's the invective? I was expecting some kind of gonzo tour de force... I guess even the great Ames had to compromise & sell out back in the day."
I don't think that denying this easily checked fact will add any credibility to your case here. Dsol 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this anon user (the nominator of this spurious AfD) has also vandalised Matt Taibbi and my user page, and tried to blank my comments here. See the user's contributions for details. Warned and reported. Dsol 21:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect, which has already been done. Fait accompli. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Zhou

Duplicate of the page for Xu Chu with inaccurate and unused (as far as I'm aware) spelling of his name. --Omdal 05:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal discussion for this AfD. Relisting in hopes of a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friable

Delete. Already transwikified dictionary entry. Little possibility of expansion to a full topic -- Kaszeta 16:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prophix

An advertisement cut and pasted from the company's website. The poster claims on the talk page to be a marketing analyst from the company (I kid you not), so please consider this old revision for deletion despite the copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hercolubus

As an article about a planet, it is totally unverifiable and contrary to current astronomical evidence. Perhaps it's something like Raëlism, but that would require a completely different article. --Pjacobi 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Physics

Delete: very non-notable website. No Google hits for "madphysics.com" outside of the page itself Turnstep 16:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 587

Some Boy Scout troops might be notable - maybe. However, this one makes no such assertion. A group of fifteen boys needs something else to be encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was to expand the article, and to include over time other troops that are notable, both for their contributions to their community and their history. This was simply the first as it was one I was associated with, and it would have been expanded with relevant information. I've seen a great many frivolous entries about obscure pop culture, this at least would provide the history of a particular troop should someone be interested.

  • Delete or "userfy." Suggest contributor create an account and "userfy" the article (move it into his user space), and work up an article on notable North Carolina troops, in his user space, creating the article itself only when it is reasonably complete and makes it clear what notable things the troops have accomplished. I would also note that the current entry has nothing in it enabling it to be easily verified; it should include links or other source citations that would enable it easy for any curious reader to verify the information in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Station (OC Transpo)

Delete Article about a bus stop, not notable see this page Stifle 16:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russkaja

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 g$

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:Music and also having difficulty verifying; most hits on him are mirrors .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree - it doesn't meet WP:Music. Article unreferenced, and I've been unable to verify the info.--Esprit15d 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky Sounds Records

Delete. Appears nn; difficulty verifying since most hits are mirrors .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Obviously misguided nomination, against wikipedia rules. mikka (t) 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Henryk Wołodkowicz

This is not English, but it's just a genealogy anyway. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is listed on WP:PNT as of today (November 22) and should not be listed for deletion before two weeks will have passed. I request that this entry be removed from AfD until (if) the proper time comes, unless someone confirms this article not worthy for a translation - and I doubt that it would be the case as it appears to be a biography of a distinguished person, a military leader, a statesman; his name listed on the Triumphal Arch. - Introvert talk 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was an eye-bleeding barrage of text. But it looks like keep is the verdict. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planes of existence (chat site)

Why delete it? Not notable enough? You don't like to list chat sites? I guess if lintilla isn't listed then this one shouldn't be either, because lintilla was way more popular than this one, and was around for a lot longer too. 203.122.225.241 17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Took a while for your comment to show up. Why is it non-notable though? What's the criteria? It had over 10,000 users per day for a period of 7 years, had over 50 spin off chat sites that cite this as its basis for existence, and helped to change political systems. I would have thought that that was notable. 203.122.225.241 17:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the nominator got rid of the External Links section. A convenient way to push for a deletion, methinks. Granted they are dead links, but that's where they were held. As stated previously, there was a court case forcing the deletion of a lot of it, and the remainder were either deleted because the accounts became inactive or else they were on free servers that delete things after a while. Still worth keeping the links there though.

If you are going to delete it then fine, but at least give a sensible reason why. If it is policy not to list chat sites, or that there is a certain criteria of popularity, then fine. But list it please. I mean, without knowing what the criteria was, I would have thought that 10,000 users per day for 7 years equated to notoriety. Not to mention the controversy involved in it, or the links that it gave.

It's not like this was just some random chat site that someone made as a pet project that was never popular, nobody ever went to, and no programming ever went in to it. I know that such places exist. This was one that influenced tens of thousands of lives. There are probably more notable chat sites but not a lot of them. It was probably on par with Crossroads or Lintilla with notoriety, but probably not as notable as Surfers.

Again, if this is a matter of not being notable enough, then fine, but *PLEASE* quote your sources! For heaven's sakes! Just arbitrarily getting rid of it like this is atrocious. If nothing else, that took me 2 hours to write! 2 hours out of my life! If I'd known I was writing it just for it to be deleted on the spot, then I wouldn't have written it.

If someone wrote a history of chat site culture, they would include this. Is there such a thing on wikipedia? I know, nowadays people don't much use talkers. People use MSN messenger or Yahoo or ICQ. But people used to use them a lot from 1993-1998 or thereabouts, and this one was one of the big ones out there back then. It is historically important if you want to understand such things as the evolution to ICQ and things like that.

But hey, if you consider it to be non-notable, then go ahead. Delete it. At least it was only 2 hours of work, hey.

And delete my links, so that it looks like original research.

Hope you get a kick out of destroying people's work there, buddy, cos there's nothing constructive in deleting something like this. 203.122.225.241 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay I have written lintilla (chat site) with some links that verify that one. Now, the two of these (along with Sleepy's multiple worlds, Fantasia's multiple worlds and Crystal Palace (chat site)) are all equally notable. Now, you can verify lintilla with active links, and you can see clearly the link to this one in the chain. If you delete this one due to notoriety then you have to delete lintilla. So go and have a look at that one, and if you think that lintilla isn't notable enough to keep, then neither is this one, and they both should be deleted. You really need to validate what constitutes notoriety before making something like an AFD.

If its a matter of references, or how its written, then fine. But please remove the AFD and give it time. Once I've written the other 4 pages, then it'll all be pieced together nicely. This is the most important piece in the puzzle of them all, but they all need to be written. But if you are going to delete this one then I obviously won't bother.

Even nominating this is ridiculous.

  • Speedy keep please, but feel free to come back in a month or so and have a look.

203.122.225.241 20:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry lots of comments here. Okay, I rewrote the whole lot. Just made it very clear, crystal clear in fact, as to why it is notable. I had to swallow a lot of pride on that one, but so be it. I am sure that you will agree that it is encyclopaedic. If you agree that it is notable, and hence worth keeping, then and only then will I add in the huge chunks of history, and then only when its proven to be notable. As stated before, I really have to write the other 4 pages first before doing that, because they all tie in together. But I will make sure that this gets a Keep on the AFD before doing all of that, just to make sure that Wikipedia approves. 203.122.225.241 21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify if possible, Delete if not. I don't recall ever having heard of any of these, and I've been around MUDs and MUCKs and IRC and so on. If this information can be independently verified, and the articles brought up to Wikipedia standards, great. Otherwise I don't think they should be deleted just because they no longer exist. I mean, PowWow (chat program) is long dead (in Internet time), but because of its influence, IT warrants an article. --JohnDBuell 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the lintilla links verify this. Its just that they wouldn't be appropriate to list here directly, because it would stop it being encyclopaedic. I can prove that it existed by referencing old talker lists (some of which haven't been updated since 1999!), and there's 10 or 15 web pages that go on to talk a bit about it, but none in great depth. I don't see why you'd want to link them here though, because its not encyclopaedic. Do a google search for "Planes of Existence" and "talker" and you'll see them all. 203.122.225.241 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have heard of PoE, although not Lintilla. I got to this article while trying to research a bit of history I remembered. I'd say that it's useful. Talkers aren't / weren't as well-known as MUDs, IRC, etc, but still have their place in "technosocial" history. Articles describing some of the most notable talkers, then, would be good things to have. If keeping isn't an option, then perhaps this (along with other notable talkers) should be merged into the Talkers article. Piquan 08:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC) User's only 15th edit[reply]
Comment: I don't see why you would delete this, as it is an important part of describing the history of the internet. It helps to tie the link in development from when we had talkers, MUDs and IRC to when we ended up with ICQ and instant messenger programs. Whilst it came about during a period where talkers as a whole were not particularly popular (and the short-lived web-based chats were), it was the most popular of these talkers at the time, and helped to provide that smooth follow through to the next stage, of instant messengers. After instant messengers, we then had online journals such as LiveJournal and blogspot which in turn led to the reintroduction of online forums, including wikipedia itself. This page represents a missing link which ties it all together, and is an important, if not essential, part of wikipedia. In a sense, it helps to form the history of wikipedia itself. If it is deleted, then people would not be able to adequately understand the history of what led to us to where we are today in the internet. Zordrac 13:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson is using this as a soapbox for personal attacks. Zordrac 20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tisk, tisk. Who's not assuming good faith? See my talk page for the relevant discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits only confirm my suspicions. I am not interested in an argument with you. I am interested in writing arguments. I did not ever pretend that I did not create this article, and did not use a sock puppet. Your statements and accusations are proven to be unfounded. Your usage of this as an attempt to launch personal attacks is not something that I will buy in to. Zordrac 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now, I'm inclined to delete all of this for one reason: The articles lack any reliable sources. There are lots of accusations and lots of chat-politicking, but nothing that indicates where that information came from. This suggests original research on the part of the article writer, which is not allowed. Remove the unverified bits and you're left with... that this was an adult chat site that people used. If the author can rewrite and source the article, I'll consider keeping on the merits. FCYTravis 23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - its not easy to scour the web for references to something that doesn't exist anymore, but I managed it, and included a lot of links, which reference its influence on popular culture (amongst other things). I am amazed that some people are still disputing that this has notoriety, but so be it. It certainly is not original research, and has been referenced many times. Zordrac 23:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - very exciting. I found a thing called a "Way back when" internet archive, which has some links to official Planes of Existence pages, so I put them in in the links. I also had some from Fantasia's old pages which reference PoE. Zordrac 01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know you guys like it when you see wikicity projects talk about articles, so here's this one - [15] that talks about Planes Of Existence's influence on Zoophilia (it's in German). I don't know if that impresses you or not that that kind of thing exists, but it certainly asserts notoriety. Zordrac 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment = I've also put in there a few other *independent* links that demonstrate that Planes of Existence influenced places outside of their general user demographic, and indeed outside of talkers generally. Zoocode is one great example of that. That was created by 2 Planes of Existence users. Zordrac 01:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I must apologise that the page now just looks like a bunch of links, and assertions of notoriety. I guess that i am just trying to make sure that this passes the Vfd. If you guys would kindly remove the tag, I'll add a bit more general substance to the article, to make it more encyclopaedic. It is just because certain people seem to be questioning its notoriety and/or that it is original research. Remove the tag and I will pad out the article more. IMO a Vfd tag should not be allowed to be put on newly created articles made in good faith, as they should be given at least a month to be written properly. I believe that this is the main problem here. Vfd tag put in far too quickly influenced vote. Zordrac 01:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Thanks to the glorious internet archive, I managed to find archive page from the founder of Planes of Existence's personal homepage which talk about some of the controversies. I know its a personal homepage, but it was linked off the official site and does reference evidence. Have still been unable to source the 1996-1999 version of the official site, under original owners. Will keep looking. But I hope that this puts an end for good to the claims of non-notoriety, lack of references, and all of the other silly claims being made here. Zordrac 12:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to The Internet Archive FAQ, sites are archived based on their Alexa rating, which in turn is a basis for determining notoriety of webpages in WP:WEB. This was primarily a talker, however, but based on WP:WEB, it establishes notoriety on the web page alone, by being listed in the way back machine. I know, this has already been proven to be notable already, but I thought that this was notable. Zordrac 15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:WEB: # Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; or

Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found. - forum size had 100,000 unique members, and while I don't really understand what an Alexa ranking is, the above link suggests that it had a high ranking. Zordrac 16:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm not convinced these are not notable, and thus will not vote delete. However, there is no way I'm voting keep with the current information. Could someone involved reference the openening sentence specifically? (10,000 users / day, etc) The spin offs section should probably include those that are referenced (Plane of Women, etc). Altogether pathetic references for supposed 10,000+ users across 3 years. Indeed google for "planes of existence" shows only 100,000 links, with zero relevant on the first page! Perhaps this population of users was occupied with other passtimes. By the way, the comperable Crystal Palace (chat site) has an alexa a little past 2.7 million. ∴ here…♠ 21:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Plane of Women was a part of the talker. There were 10 talkers - Plane of Wisdom, Magic/Mysticism, Madness, Love, Lust/Extroversion, Animals, Women, Men, Peace/Dolphins and Darkness/Dungeon (they changed names over time). These are not spin offs. They were a part of the talker. As for the 10,000 users per day, well, it was in the system logs. And besides which, it was much more popular than Crystal Palace. As for your search, you should realise that planes of existence refers to astral travel. This makes it extremely difficult to search for links about it. Its also been ended for quite some time. I am trying to get links, but its not easy to get them all. If you like, I can remove the 10,000 users per day bit, and instead put in that it was the most popular talker on talker.com from 1996-1999 (Crystal Palace is also on talker.com and was then). Zordrac 23:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was also called a huge number of different names. "POE", as well as abbreviations for each of the 10 planes, including "POA", "POD", "POW", "POM", "POL" and others. People called it "plain" and often just called it "Madness" and left out the plane altogether, or PoE and so forth. Makes it ridiculously difficult to search for it. Zordrac 23:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just elaborating on the system logs bit. They produced automatic stats of user numbers and popularity. A lot of talkers do this. 10,000 was the average. It got as high as 18,000. Oh, but it wasn't 18,000 on at a time or anything. I think the most on at a time was about 300. That's just how many different users logged in at some time during the day. Zordrac 23:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've done the history of talkers on talker as well as updating online chat to include this, and have also added pages for other important chat sites, Cat Chat (talker), Cheesehouse (talker), Resort (talker), Surfers (talker), Foothills (talker), and ew-too (the code base used on the early ones). I've also included less popular Crossroads (chat site) and Lighthouse (chat site). All of this is very stubby, but this is just so tiring to do all of this. I've also referenced a lot of official history of talkers in doing this, to put it all in to perspective. And I've referenced Alexa a fair bit. According to Alexa, right now Sleepy's multiple worlds is the 3rd most popular web site that is under the category "talker" (behind Surfer's and Resort). I tried to get Alexa rankings for 1996 and such but was unable to. Of course, that doesn't make it the 3rd most popular talker necessarily, but its a good hint. Isn't in the top 100,000 web sites though, but that is not a surprise, since talkers are not web sites, and rarely have a web site component at all. Hence Alexa rankings are somewhat irrelevant. Zordrac 11:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've been padding out some of the stubby articles and have discovered another notable talker, Ncohafmatu, although I question its assertion as the first major NUTS talker ahead of Crossroads (chat site). Nonetheless, I added a redlink and might fill it in later. I think that the dates suggest that it came after Crossroads, but it was probably the first NUTS talker that was created by Neil Robertson, who wrote NUTS, and hence is probably notable enough for inclusion.

I've also gone to a few other places that referenced Planes of existence, including the article on zoophilia to add links to the planes of existence, with regards to 3 existing assertions made in the article:

  1. That talkers are the main way that zoophiles get together, but that they are rarely advertised publicly. That's not true, as Planes of existence, lintilla and sleepy's, all with zoophile ports, advertised this very publicly and were listed on most major talker listings.
  2. That in the late 1990s and early 2000s most of the major zoophile talkers shut down. Plane of animals was the only major zoophile talker that shut down over this period of time, so I linked to it. It was also the most popular of the zoophile talkers that were about at the time.
  3. I added the link to zoo code, which is an important part of the identity of being a zoophile, and made a link back to planes of existence because it was created by users on the planes of existence (as referenced in the code itself).

This is of course a debatable issue. In some ways, doing so can be used to assert notoriety to this article, and hence why it cannot be deleted. However, some may view it as trying to influence the vote. So I thought to report it here, in case anyone disputes my validity in being able to do this. Zordrac 14:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just realised that when Neil Robertson made Nuts (Talker), the most popular talker base in history, in 1992, it was done as a school project about the history of talkers. He was asked to write his own version of a talker, which was based on UNaXcess, one of the early intranet talkers, and he didn't realise that ew-too already existed or that talkers were now on the internet. So, just imagine that in the future sometime someone else is asked to do a project on the history of talkers, to develop something else. If they don't have these kind of resources to investigate it, it might not happen. This whole area might not be overly popular, and might never have been all that popular, in comparison to IRC or newsgroups which it competed with early on, and especially not in comparison to ICQ, instant messenger, World Wide Web and so forth that were about later (and now). However, it may still be used for a project by someone. Deleting something of historical significance may prevent future projects.

By the way, I added in one of the early controversies on Surfers (talker) about the stolen code. Its an important part of the history. As are the wars that the early talkers had with their universities, who refused to host them! LOL. Zordrac 18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from the talk page. It seems they went to the wrong spot Don't delete or merge. It's ok as a standalone, although an introduction with a definition of some of the terms used later ("worlds", "talkers", etc.) would be fitting. I don't know where to find the criteria for deletion here, so if anyone can point me to a link, that'd be nice. Also the references to zoophilia are slightly excesive and not too relevant, maybe some editing is in order, but not a flat out deletion. Now I know what PoE was, and finding out random stuff is kinda the point of an encyclopedia, no? PoE is deffinetly a historical reference to the beggining of talkers, and the internet culture in general. Why delete our own recent history? User: JuliusBonapart unsigned comment by User: JuliusBonapart put on talk page by accident

Comment: Great suggestions! I have fixed up the article with relation to the tips. I just have the small link to zoo code listed in influence (its been established by its apparent creator that it wasn't that big a deal), and got rid of the fan sites (the fact that it had a lot of users and was popular isn't really the point here, and determining its popularity is irrelevant with regards to its relevance). I've also put in a basic history, focussing primarily on the events in late 1998/early 1999, as well as the incident that was the death of talkers. Perhaps I should link to NUTS 3 code to point out the holes in the code that allowed this kind of thing to happen? Might be a bit difficult to extract though. Also I found out apparently it started in October 1996, not July 1996, so I fixed that. Seems it was about for a lot shorter than it seemed to be.

By the way, I just thought that I'd point out something here. I saw on the talker page that there was a reference to a BBC article as apparent proof of validity, yet when I investigated the article it turns out that it is a BBC-approved wikicity! I got this hint when I looked at Snowplains' page, when I was trying to decide whether Snowplains warrants a mention (IMO it doesn't - its historically irrelevant, and only has 11 users on right now so isn't popular enough to warrant notoriety). Indeed, Snowplains asserted that the article was primarily an advertisement for their service. So much for reliable sources!

As for the ew-too page, that's written by the guy who runs foothills. Granted that we can establish that he is of historical importance, but he is clearly biased in favour of ew-too talkers, and indeed their charts don't even recognise the existence of non ew-too talkers. Neil Robertson protested at that in 1998 and joined with them, but Neil Robertson is biased. He does not mention a single adult-orientated talker, and only mentions the ones that he likes. Some of the talkers he listed in his history are so far from being notable as to be a joke. I mean Crypt? Come on now. Who has heard of that? Nobody uses their code base, and nobody ever went to their talker. It just so happens that Neil liked the talker.

So the thing is that this is a very subjective account, for 2 primary reasons: 1) they historically didn't have web pages and hence most of the evidence of everything was stored within the talker itself, and 2) all of the talk about everything is done from a promotional point of view. The whole thing where a lot of people insist that talkers "only just started" in 1996 while they were statistically the most popular from 1992-1994 suggests bias. The fact that there were more talkers in the 1997-1998 period suggests to some that that was the height of their popularity, but the release of ICQ in 1996 means that in reality it wasn't.

Anyway, I have suggested for a AFD to be placed on Mamnuts. I am not sure about Amnuts however. I guess if its list where it says that over 100 talkers use the code is true, then it is notable enough for me. But Mamnuts, which only started 6 days ago and has no talkers using it, is hardly notable. Sounds like a good code base though, if you were going to start your own talker. But its basically advertising.

At least nobody could suggest that this is advertising for anything. lol. The place closed down years ago. Zordrac 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent set already

The MUSH Star Wars MUSH was the subject of 2 votes for deletion [16] and [17], the first of which had no consensus, while the second resulted in a "keep". Star Wars MUSH was not one of the most popular MUSHes, but has historical importance in being the first of something, namely the first Star Wars MUSH. Therefore, by applying the same logic, this page, and indeed also the lintilla (chat site) page have just as much historical significance, and within a similar kind of community (MUSH and Talker communities are similar), and hence the precedent set in that vote means that Wikipedia already approves of this kind of article existing.

We can sit here and debate whether you personally think that this is important, and, if you personally don't think that talkers are important full stop then it is pretty unlikely that you will. The thin links to things like Yahoo! messenger, ICQ and LiveJournal are just that, thin. But it has great relevance within the talker community. Zordrac 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current tally

We currently have 3 in favour of keep, 2 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure. Perhaps the 4 unsure should be contacted to see what their decision is? Zordrac 15:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3? There's 2, as the others all made qualifications. I would suggest that its all been well and truly verified by now. And it is an important part of history, so needs to stay. This has been validated in many places. See here: Talk:Zoophilia for yet another example. Zordrac 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 7 in favour of keep, 3 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure. Zordrac 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Code page?

I noticed that a wikicity called zoowiki has a page for Zoo Code already [18], but am not sure whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Whilst it is popularly used within the zoophile community, it is no more common than Geek Code is within the Geek community, and the community itself is much smaller. Secondly, zoowiki already has a page on it, which seems to be sufficient. I felt that it was sufficiently notable to have its own heading within the zoophile article, however. Do you agree that this is the correct amount of notoriety for such a thing? I am also concerned about adding such things until this Vfd passes, because zoo code references planes of existence directly, and was written on planes of existence by 2 planes of existence users (wizards actually) when it was at the height of its popularity. Henceforth its notoriety is dependent on the notoriety of this article. Zordrac 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - Apparently Hobbes, the fellow that wrote Zoo Code is a user of wikipedia User: Zetawoof and he can confirm the relevance of this page. Didn't vote for some reason though. But there is debate whether it should be in the zoophilia page, so hence having a page for zoo code seems excessive. Zordrac 13:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if this is deleted

I will obviously protest the decision, as I think that standard wikipedia policy was not used when deciding on the deletion process, and this is a valid encyclopaedic article that is important from a historical perspective. However, if Wikipedia decides that it should be deleted, presumably owing to the fact that it closed 2 1/2 years ago (I can't see any other valid reason why it should be deleted), then I think that the information contained should instead be added to other articles as a merge. Whether it is essential for it to have its own page is one issue - there should be no issue about it needing to be included in the encyclopaedia. Its notability is well established. Zordrac 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and likely Merge - Quite a bit of information has now been collected about talkers. All the individual MOO (LambdaMOO, etc) pages were recently merged into the same article, which may be appropriate in this case as well. In any case, this work shouldn't be deleted without at least merging first. ∴ here…♠ 17:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that that is plausible to merge it all. However, then the problem exists as to which of the talkers to keep in their own right and which to merge, and how to merge them. Also, with the MUSH pages, they decided to keep a few of them, such as Star Wars MUSH separate. Anyway, here is a list of the notable talkers (in my opinion) and why they are notable (1 line summary):
  • UNaXcess - first ever talker, created in 1984. Also the basis for Nuts (Talker) code.
  • Cat Chat (talker) - first ever internet talker, created in 1990. Also the eventual basis for Ew-too code.
  • Cheesehouse (talker) - second ever internet talker, and first ever popular one, created in 1991. (define popularity in that it had over 10 users on at a time, and had users that did not belong to the university where it was stored).
  • Foothills (talker) aka Elsewhere - Not sure if this is the 3rd ever internet talker or not, but seems to be. Was the first really popular one, getting over 100 people online at a time. Historically it is the 3rd most popular talker in history. Also formed Elsewhere code, which became ew-too code.
  • Resort (talker) - first talker to use ew-too code and equal most popular talker in history (still equal 1st).
  • Surfers (talker) - created immediately after public release of ew-too code, and equal most popular talker in history.
  • Ncohafmuta - (possibly) the most popular Nuts (Talker) in history, and used as a partial basis for Amnuts.
  • Crossroads (chat site) - officially the most popular Nuts (Talker) in history, but not recognised by Nuts creator Neil Robertson (or by Ncohafmuta's creator, who insists that Ncohafmuta was not Nuts - it was Iforms which is based on Nuts).
  • Lighthouse (chat site) - first ever adult (18+) talker. Was not popular though. I don't know a lot about it so its a stub.
  • Lintilla (chat site) - second ever adult talker, and historically influential on the whole adult community, as it led to Sleepy's multiple worlds, Fantasia's multiple worlds and Planes of existence (chat site), shares with Fantasia, Planes and Crystal Palace (chat site) bragging rights as the most popular adult talker in history. Also the first ever multiple worlds talker.
  • Sleepy's multiple worlds - direct copy of lintilla. The fight itself greatly influenced the culture, and led to a move towards multiple worlds talkers, towards Nuts generally, and towards adult-orientated talkers (since 1996, half of the talkers are adult only). According to Alexa, is currently the 3rd most popular talker.
  • Fantasia's multiple worlds - important historically, primarily with regards to it being hacked by Virus who went on to start Crystal Palace (chat site) as a 17 year old, and also is seen as the catalyst for the death of talkers, because of his actions on CP in 1998 and POE in 2000. Also holds the record for the most number of "worlds" - 30, which represented perhaps just why talkers died - because there were too many talkers and not enough people to spread between them.
  • Planes of existence (chat site) (this one) - first multiple worlds talker that was not entirely adult-orientated, first to use NUTS 3 linking code, first talker of any kind to mix all ages and adult areas, first talker to mix general with human rights elements (although Crossroads (chat site) sort of did that too). Was probably the most popular zoophile talker, one of the most popular BDSM talkers, and as far as I know the only talker that had public cybersex scenes - and hence the Lust talker was the most popular of its type (and probably the most popular adult talker ever). The 2000 incident on the talker, with the spying, was the most notable, because that caused the death of talkers. A lot of other smaller incidents were also notable.
  • Crystal Palace (chat site) - possibly notable in terms of its popularity - competed as the most popular BDSM talker. Probably notable as the most well-designed talker in history, with the most unique code ever. But most notable because of the spying incident in 1998, which eventually caused the death of talkers.

There are a lot of others that were more popular than some of the ones listed there, but I was only listing the first of something and most popular of something. There are ones such as Snowplains which is probably the 4th most popular talker in history, or maybe 5th or 6th, and the first big ew-too talker that was created after 1996, and the only one that broke free of the stranglehold that NUTS had on the market. Or of course we can talk about the various talkers that influenced different code bases. But in my mind those things don't warrant their own pages.

Indeed, I don't think that Amnuts or Mamnuts warrant their own pages either. They are just code bases after all, and every talker ever created had its own unique code base (well, perhaps not quite every one, but every one with a competent developer). Fantasia's, Sleepy's and lintilla all were identical, so that's perhaps one exception. But if we went around including every code base, we'd have 1000 articles, which I think is excessive. There were really only 2 main code bases used - ew-too and Nuts. That's all we need articles on.

But if someone wishes to merge some of these, then that's fine. But that's my rationale for them all. Zordrac 19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Szük

This article looks like a hoax. No refs given. Nothing on Google. Bluewave 18:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill 5

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the page is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation TotalTommyTerror 18:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 18:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculation and crystal-ballery. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While many future game titles may have enough confirmed information to warrant a page a little bit ahead of schedule, Silent Hill 5 simply does not. It's a great series, and I'm sure this article will be made in a more encyclopediac way once more information about the game is confirmed. --Frag 22:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I, personally, believe that the article should remain open, but that the 'Speculation' portion of the article can be deleted. The introduction does include a reference to its annoucement from Eurogamer about either being on the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. I have also heard various other mentions from Akira, the composer/producer of The Room, but I've yet to find such topics/website pages so that I could refer to them. The crystal-ballery portions can be deleted, but what has been mentioned in the Eurogamer article should stay and that the page should remain open. If anyone wants me to, I'll try to revise this article. --Godzilla 09:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pity sex

Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --PhilipO 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't understand why. I created the article because I felt that it was culturally significant enough to merit mention. I apologize if it's considered trivial. King Zeal 00:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pity sex is not slang. It's a cultural standard. Much like the term "making out". King Zeal 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Vote by article creator[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and this article is not a slang dictionary article, either. A slang dictionary would tell us the etymology, history, usage, meaning, pronunciation, synonyms, and translations of a phrase. This article, however, tells us about pity sex, including people's motivations for having it and its potential repercussions. Uncle G 19:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Kappa 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article, while not fabulous, is clearly about the phenomenon rather than the word. The phenomenon is, I suppose, real and notable enough - though the popular psychology stuff grates on me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems like overkill to me, like explaining the roundness of a basketball. I would like to mention I think there should be limits to what concepts deserve articles. That line is probably only going to lie in human judgement and with no hard rules. Is pity sex something people will try to look up? The term seems self-explanitory. Still, seems to be just over the line of having some quality. I would definitely like to see more refs added. --DanielCD 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why, if you consider this to be overkill, there is a necessity to have articles on casual sex, friend zone or, as I mentioned before, making out. They're just as "self-explanatory", if not moreso.
Personally, I think the strength of Wikipedia is to assume there isn't a such thing as "common" sense.
And I'm working on references. They're not very easy to Google. King Zeal 22:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did say Keep, did I not? --DanielCD 04:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary (in much shorter version). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although the more popular nomenclature is probably "Mercy fuck" which should redirect there, and be mentioned as such. BD2412 T 15:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Witionary. No need for an article. Sethie 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of references this seems unencyclopedic to me; it's a common enough phenomenon perhaps, but neither the concept nor the phrase are specific enough to merit inclusion. - squibix 03:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is complete original research and the author's unsourced opinion, and is not at all encyclopedic. It is full of POV and is basically what one person happens to think about the subject. I am not at all convinced that this can be made an encyclopedic topic beyond a dicdef. MCB 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I kept as much of my opinion as I could out of it. As I said before, online references on this subject are extremely hard to find. King Zeal 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)King Zeal[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medfordese

Neologism. No google hits [19] Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Internet slang -- timc | Talk 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Zorz

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especialy not for non-notable gaming/l337 slang. Delete--Sherool (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zomgbays

Non-notable "made up" word/mis-spelling, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete --Sherool (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wallwin Electric Services Ltd

Article is clearly a promotional vehicle for a non-notable company. The final line of the article reads "Wallwin will work hard to earn your business." While this is an admirable and laudable goal, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 18:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Placeholder name. Owen× ☎ 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thingus

Slang dictionary definition. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron vidler

Unverifiable. Nothing can be found about this guy, or the alleged "National Vidler Museum" or the town called Vilder in Australia. Seems like a hoax or a joke. The original author has been warned for vandalism. May be a sockpuppet of User: 211.27.173.12, who wrote Alberto Karanfilov which is a similar unverifiable Australia article created last week as well. --W.marsh 19:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Karanfilov

Similar to Aaron vidler (also up for AfD). Both are by the same authors and are unverifiable bios of Australians. But listing seperately since they aren't directly related. I can find no verification of the claims in this article, and if you check the history, I'm not alone. --W.marsh 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Wages

Likely an hoax [23]. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UniverseDown

non-notable band

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yggdra Union

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. merge and transwiki. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G already transwikied this to Wikibooks (at the location linked below). Interested parties can continue to work on this article there.

While the link is now a redlink, the history is preserved in the history of Rune-scape. The bulk of the general info has been merged into Cheating in online games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape cheats

This article is composed of two halves. One half is a general summary of cheats present in all MMORPGs, with very occasional references to how the developer of Runescape has attempted to overcome them. The other half is some specific how-to advice (albeit not in imperative tone) on how to avoid being scammed and how to make money without scamming.

All that said, this belongs on Wikibooks WikiCity RuneScape, and should be transwikied and deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Wikibooks doesn't want this, but the Wikicity does. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incidentally, there's been some discussion on the talk page about the appropriateness of this article, and apparently someone has been trying to remove sections of it. Please understand that I'm proposing moving this to a project whose mission includes how-to advice and original research (Wikibooks), not deleting it entirely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm definitely ameniable to making a Wikibook out of portions of the current article. I don't want to see the article removed entirely or 'offending links' consistently blanked (usually two or three times a week). When I link to the book from the article, I would like to have those links remain, even though self identified employees of the company that makes the game seem to be vehemently opposed to them. Jonathan888 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you suggest how this article is specific to Runescape other than the unencyclopedic how-to advice? This seems to be a guide, which is not part of Wikipedia's mission. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, since you ask; it is a major area of interest for the RuneScape community. Whether a specific player participates in cheating or not, it affects play for all. Having an information page about it is very encyclopedic. As I just said, I'm quite willing to move the 'guide' parts to a wikibook, but Wikipedia deserves an entry... just look at the history of the topic, it has more entries in a day than an article like Cathode does in a month. The bots used for the game are game specific, the scams used are game specific: based on the mechanisms of the game not MMPOG in general as has been purported by some. The history of how JAGeX has countered this trend is VERY specific to this game. What more do you want?Jonathan888 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clickbots and attacks on the communications protocols aren't specific to RuneScape, nor is any single one of these scams (all of which have reared their head in DikuMUDs, EQ, Diablo, WoW, and scores of lesser-known games). I think there's probably a couple of paragraphs on how Jagex has dealt with these specific problems endemic to online games could fit into the RuneScape article, but most of the content of this article is a description of cheating methods common to all games. I hate arguing by analogy, but this article smacks of having shuffling in poker, shuffling in bridge, shuffling in rummy, etc. The cheats are the same, even when the game is different. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, here's a list of very game specific cheats:
            • Casting weaken on tree stump
            • Scar is RuneScape specific
            • Random events is very RuneScape specific - other games have yet to implement this workaround (google it if you don't trust me on this one)
            • Armour trimming - explicitly game specific
            • Alt-F4 scam (google it: it comes up with 3 runescape hits on the first page, and NO other games)
            • there are more but that's a quick list. Jonathan888 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • These cheats are only for Runescape, but they represent more generic methods of cheating with applies to many MMORPGs. Scar, for example, is a macro program. While Scar itself will only work on RuneScape, Macros themselves are a method for cheating in any number of MMORPGs.
              • Also, please do not accuse editors here of not reading the article. This is akin to saying the votes are bad-faith. Please assume good faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Apologies for my rash bad faith comment - I'll remove it from the sentence and put it here: I said it seemed the article was not being read and that's not a good thing for me to say about another editor. *sorry*
                • The alt-F4 scam isn't RuneScape specific; I've seen the same scam done in both Diablo (although most players aren't so dumb as to fall for it) and a similar control-C scam done in various DikuMUDs. Heck, it's just a variation on the old "Hey, alt-F4 does (various unbelievable thing)!" online chat gag. Likewise for the armor trimming con; it's a variation on the "give me that item and I'll dupe it for you" con. That leaves us with the name of a cheat program and the random events system (the latter better suited to the RuneScape article anyway). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this article may be on the wordy side, it does not read like a how-to guide. The subject is clearly notable, and the article is reasonably well-written and organized, and summarizes valuable information gathered from many sources. I don't see any part of it needing to be transwikied. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, I have a doubt. Since my legal background is next to nothing, I don't know if the Two person team trade scam, Clan trust test or loyalty test scam and [Alt + F4] scam, item duplication scam sections violate the RuneScape Terms of Service [24], where it states You must not encourage, or attempt to trick other players into breaking our rules. Is this safe, or it is fine print it could be gripped in the future? -- ReyBrujo 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Transwiki per above ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it seems Wikibooks is currently going an internal debate about removing it's gameshelf entirely. Wikibooks:Game manual guidelines I'm beginning to wonder if this whole topic may be an 'ugly stepchild' that no one really wants.Jonathan888 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The RuneScape cheats page does nothing to educate people about the game aside from deluding people into believing that they can get ahead by cheating instead of playing the game fairly.Mike 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If nothing else, move to RuneScape Wikicities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought we were not a GameFAQ. This might set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stay. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sort of wishing I never created this page. When I originally created it, it was simply a history of RuneScape cheating. It was carefully researched and was purely factual with no opinions or discussion of if cheating was right or wrong. It avoided controversy by simply only detailing cheat info after it had been fixed, it wasn't meant to be an article on HOW to cheat, but a more academic article on the sorts of problems MMOGs face and how they solve them, with RuneScape as a case study. Unfortunately a lot of that over the months was gradually erroded, and now it seems to suffer repeat hijacks by malicious people who just see it as a handy place to advertise and try to scam players, which was not the intent! Even worse they seem to have managed to convince some people to support them in this by veiling their advertising as facts when clearly they really just want to promote their own site. Personally I'm not sure allowing Wikipedia to become a site which everyone just sees as a handy source of free advertising, or place to scam gulliable users is a good idea! I've sort of lost faith in wikipedia after seeing hours of work inevitable get destroyed through a million tiny edits which seem to add up to turn it into innacurate nonsense. I can't be bothered anymore, especially when people trying to undo the damage get accused of vandalism! So yes - delete it. Runefire 20:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't mind if an exact tutorial hand-holding readers in a walkthrough of how to cheat is removed, but I would object to removing any details chronicling the pervasiveness and efficacy of cheats, the tactics or programs' names, the ease of use of the cheat, and other material that will help assess the weakness in the game's security, including specifics of whether the cheat employs macroing or packet-level modifications and whether the current servers are still vulnerable to the cheat. Especially considering the growing interest, albeit still very fledgling, financial firms have in placing GDP calculations on virtual worlds, as much information about cheating needs to be made available to help assess destability in the virtual markets. I'm looking at Runescape from an economist's lens and would like to evaluate the severity of the problem of cheating just as much as I would in the problem of counterfeiting trusted currencies in the real world. I think the established policies of what's permissible in Wiki articles about counterfeiting real currencies can be applied to this article. Analysis of online gaming is a serious topic: [25] Any information Wiki can provide in aiding analysis of Runescape should be kept. Other information such as the Alt-F4 or Ctl-W scams are just good to have mentioned to help identify the demerits of browser-based games like Runescape. Thoreaulylazy 03:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!* This entry is informative AND encyclopedic, and can provide researchers valuable information not available elsewhere in such a nice package. By researcher I mean game developers looking for a way to overcome cheats and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.207.93 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep* I believe that this entry is good because it is loaded with useful information. Though Runescape cheating is unacceptable, I would like to say that this entry serves as a valuable resource that is very hard to find. The scams are not supposed to listed as to show readers how to do it - they are there for your own convenience so you can have the best gaming experience possible without scammers ruining it for you. Please keep this entry here, so that people who need to know this information will be informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.59 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument

There is an article at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and nothing links to the article on the (former) national monument. It used to be a monument but is no longer. Or should the monument redirect to the park? Gwimpey 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, with possible merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican cheeses

a four-part, un-introed largely uneccesary list. could be covered just as well with a category.Delete.jfg284 you were saying? 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect could also work, it or merge whichever.--T. Anthony 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 04:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article Bob 20:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external or internal links or Internet directories.--Bob 20:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is carefully sourced. Lists and categories complement each other. This does not appear to me to be "indiscriminate information." Nor is it a collection of links. -Willmcw 20:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a collection of links, nowhere do you state how being gay or whatever has had an effect on the music produced by the list of people.--Bob 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Although I accepted its deletion at the time I hope that if this is kept then List of Catholic composers is kept as well. That said both lists should be referenced and verify the Catholicism or LGBT nature of their names.--T. Anthony 04:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false analogy if you're trying to apply it to my voting pattern. Sexual orientation is not equivalent to religion or ethnicity. See my talk page. Durova 10:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to your vote, in least I don't think so. I don't keep track that well of who is voting for what. I'm talking in general to anyone that it does seem certain genetic predispositions or ways of living are more acceptable to list then others. I find this curious. Various religions have certainly faced discrimination. Added to that various other genetic predispositions have faced abuse. If it is a matter of being born a certain way mattering I'll spin off a list from the Osteogenesis imperfecta article. Still maybe I am being a bit too snotty.--T. Anthony 15:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall reading somewhere that being religious has a genetic component. Voyager640 18:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly T. Anthony. If a list on Catholic composers is to be deleted, then a list on gay composers should also be deleted. Shouldn't standards be the same throughout Wikipedia? Should gay lists and jewish lists be allowed yet white, catholic straight lists be deleted? --Bob 19:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professional achievement that overcomes discrimination is legitimate grounds for inclusion. Carry your reasoning to its logical conclusion and and it would eliminate List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date. I'd vote to keep a List of Roman Catholic composers and musicians in England, 1550 - 1850. I'd have no problem with List of Roman Catholic composers of liturgical works. A generalized List of Catholic composers goes too far because there is no inherent relationship between Catholicism and secular music. Durova 04:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"List of Roman Catholic composers and musicians in England, 1550 - 1850", would be an unreasonably long title. Also List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date indicates why they are notable and that it isn't just for being black. By the logic your using I think List of first gay, lesbian or bisexual composers by symphony or orchestra would fit better.--T. Anthony 04:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that should definitely go too! --TimPope 17:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"List of straight composers" (or presumably straight composers) would be quite lengthy, but I see no reason why not to have one (except that with the shorter list of GLB composers one need simply compare to a complete list of composers), as with the shorter "List of gay, lesbian or bisexual Jewish people". Just because you do not find a piece of information, or an entire article personally useful does not seem a good reason to eliminate that information from Wikipedia. Hyacinth 12:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As most people are straight that would be silly. (Hopefully no one will say "most people are Christians, but you voted for those lists", because most people are NOT Christians and never were) Although because of stereotypes I could almost see List of heterosexual men in musical theatre or maybe in nursing. Almost, well sort of in a way.--T. Anthony 17:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually List of male nurses could be closer to valid, although the only male I see on List of nurses is homosexual so limiting it to heterosexuals maybe wouldn't.--T. Anthony 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with the traditions of article creation / deletion on this site. Still, as a queer classical musician, I can say without a doubt that such lists are useful in preserving queer cultural identity and act as a great starting point for further research. (jklein)
  • Strong delete who cares? StabRule 23:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. People care. -- JJay 17:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Americans

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article Bob 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external or internal links or Internet directories. The list can be bettered served through categories and linked to through sites dealing with Native Americans --Bob 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A person whose heritage traces to only one tribe is a straightforward matter: are they a registered member of the tribe? Standards for inclusion are well established. What becomes problematic is how a tribe-specific list would classify someone who is Comanche/Apache/Cherokee. Durova 04:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-You have a point Durova, one per each tribe would be awkward. Then again JJay has a point too. There is a tendency for celebrities to fake being Native American or part Native Americans. Or to exaggerate the importance of what ancestry they do have in that area. Cher was noted for that. She is part Cherokee, maybe, but she's mostly Armenian. This is a big headache for many tribes. Anyway it seems like maybe it should be limited to those whose ancestry is substantially native. I'm not sure if there's a way to determine that though.--T. Anthony 15:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this list is kept, then there should be no argument whether or not List of white people is kept? --Bob 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bob submitting List of white people today to make a point does not seem very cool to me. Nevertheless, Heather Locklear may qualify for inclusion to your list considering her mostly Scottish background. Please add her to List of African Americans as well, owing to her African roots as discussed in her bio. Folks, are we doing genealogy here or what? This all seems kind of nutty to me.-- JJay 19:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ruin this discussion, but I took Locklear and Cher off.--T. Anthony 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, add her to both of those lists, and while you're at it, why not add her to a List of heterosexual actors, List of heterosexual women and List of blonde-haired actors as well.--Bob 22:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, have a look at this: List of African Americans. Now, if this is deleted, and Native Americans is kept, then we have a problem as standards should be the same for any list. Indiscriminately keeping some and deleting others is not good. There should be a policy on this. --Bob 22:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid topic, bad presentation. We've been through this before; Canadian First Nations do not belong under the umbrella term "Native Americans", because that term is simply too open to confusion and disagreement about whether it pertains to North and South America, or specifically to the United States. (This is substantially reinforced, I might add, by the presence of a US-specific "ethnic subcultures of the United States" template on the article.) And the list of Canadians provided here doesn't even begin to cover it anyway, and Robbie Robertson is filed in the wrong section, to boot. Frankly, this list isn't appropriate; each country should have its own distinct list. Split each country out to its own "List of (insert culturally-appropriate term here) from (country)" sublist; keep this title only as pertaining to the US in particular. Bearcat 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep, people don't seem to be getting the idea that categories and lists serve different purposes, and this repeated attempt to delete articles about minorities is beginning to look more and more suspicious. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't compress all into tiny list. StabRule 23:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, plus meets standards of WP:MUSIC after having been rewritten. Johnleemk | Talk 11:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Son, Ambulance

non-encyclopedic + advertisement of sorts

Comment I edited this article so that it is no longer a copyvio. I'm not sure if that fixed the other problems also. If it doesn't get deleted, it should really be redirected to a page called Son, Ambulance. Peachlette 05:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have moved the article to Son, Ambulance per Peachlette. --Phroziac . o º O (mmm chicken)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article. Also the list is hardly maintainable and involves lots of speculation. Sure, have an article about outing gay people and the controversy that surrounds that, could be interesting, but a list like this is hardly encyclopedic Bob 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_22&oldid=29003464"