Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 14: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Yiddish Typewriter
Line 49: Line 49:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrasonic Soldering}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrasonic Soldering}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yiddish Typewriter}}

Revision as of 07:08, 14 October 2005

< October 13 >

Purge server cache

October 14

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Irresponsible

Nominated for speedy as This is a joke; this episode isn't real.. Neither hoaxes are CSDs, nor I know if this is one, although it looks like so: it's the creator's only edit in WP. Nabla 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Byzantine Party

tagged as a speedy, but not nonsense -Doc (?) 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax, no such party (political? NGO?), zero Google for "New Byzantine Party". Perhaps if we had more information I'd reconsider.--inksT 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had tagged it because zero google = party of one, i.e. hoax. Check the editor's posts- all vandalism and hoaxes going back months. IP blocking is in order JJay 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria (pl read WP:CSD) - patent nonsense should not need google to identify. Delete this - but it is not a speedy. --Doc (?) 01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read it. Changed to delete. What about the other article from the same user that i just tagged? JJay 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado tornado

nominated for speedy as 'Nonsense, and what little non-nonsense there is already exists under Tornado' but that's not meeting CSD. -Doc (?) 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. More careful review reveals not much salvagable, photos unsourced, so probably delete.--RichG 11:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as requested by the author and aparatenly sole contributor to the article. DES (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fugg

    • The problem is that this is a neologism: a made up word. With no evidence that this is a word that is widely used by a significant number of people, there is no way this can stay on wikipedia. I suggest you add it to urbandictionary.com if you have not already. That's the place for made up terms.Delete--Isotope23 13:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

neologism Cnwb 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sorry, but "fugg" was not invented in 1999 by this man. Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" coined the term, and it was written in the 50s I believe. A punk group named themselves the "Fuggs" after this. This article is thus inaccurate. --MacRusgail 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Golla

There was a annon user that kept saying that this person don't exist. I dont know if its true but Im placing this is AFD just in case. No Vote --JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth camoflauge

Misspelled title and content is reproduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Ziggurat 01:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic venues

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Krash 01:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hands

Unencyclopaedic, in my view. Lack of notability, no explanation for why this article is named "Mr Hands", no context on the person's real name, links to somewhat inappropriate material on bestiality, etc. Close to nonsense. Delete. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, reason given now. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bishop

A nn wrestser for a nn wrestling company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete — the votes fell 8/4 delete, with 2 for keep stating that they were weak; also, serious concerns about verifiability and notability were raised. --Gareth Hughes 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment

nn wrestling company of Jerry Bishop and other wrestlers which im about to put on VFD.Says in the article that it is a small professional wrestling company. Promotional also Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is M. W. Secoy and I am the one who started the XWE page. Now, I don't seem to see what kind of a problem this site has with small pages, but this is a huge work in progress which I can only attend to a handfull of days a week. I plan on adding much more content on the sites, pictures and all at permission of the company and would like to hope I can continue to slowly build this site without having to worry about this sites standards. From what I can see, this is a harmless page without foul language or nudity. It's a chance to show off a small company of hard workers on a broader scale. The intent of starting this site was so that we could possibly have people have might be searching for independent wrestling stumble upon the site, gain interest from it and check it out. No where have I shoved any advertisement on the site, nor have I even listed the adress of the building. As for the link issue, I don't seem to see what it is you are talking about. I click on the links to get back from wrestler to the XWE and they seem to work just fine for me. Again, I know this seems like a small site but trust me, it's a work in progress and I'm doing it for the benefit of many great hard working guys. Besides, what could it hurt? Do you guys get paid to surf around and find web pages started by people that you don't think is worthy of Wiki? There's a webpage about XWE on Wiki. So what? What does it really matter to you? No real skin off your nose in the long run, right? Why not just leave it be if it's only showcasing a growing thing in Ohio? Like I stated before, it's an innocent site without foul language, nudity, or other things like that. Delete those pages, but leave this one alone? Thank you for listening.

M. W. Secoy

    • There is a harm in having an article on such an unknown organization. None of the information in the article, can be confirmed with reliable sources. Information, on a well known group, like World Wrestling Entertainment can easily be verified, and false information quickly removed. Anybody could put anything in this article, and other editors would have no way of knowing what's real and what's not. Also, wikipedia isn't a venue for promotion, and we don't give free advertising. Advertising costs money, this page has a cost, even though you and I may not be the ones paying. --rob 02:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for M. W. Secoy: in this case, how professional is "professional"? I assume that money must surely change hands, but do the wrestlers generally consider their involvement with Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment to be their career and primary source of income, or is it something they do as a hobby or "on the side"? To compare this subject with precedents set by previous articles, we generally keep truly professional sports organisations, but generally do not keep amateur/hobbyist organisations. In either case, please do not consider this anything personal against XWE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, I still don't see this as anything other than NN vanity. Also questionable violation of WP:NOT. Every semipro wrestler in the country will end up being listed if this continues. I reiterate: delete but without prejudice to Mr. Secoy's right to repost the article if something notable about the league comes up. - Sensor 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I enjoy watching wrasslin', but minor league wrestling companies such as XWE are more than likely going to be only trivia for wrestling fanatics ten years from now. The only reason for siding on the side of Keep instead of Delete for me is that the Professional wrestling promotion article includes a whole bunch of redlinks for minor wrestling promotions such as these. A short article, detailing the highlights of the promoytions history would be appropriate, along with an external link to the companies website might be appropriate. Listing every wrestler and making an article for the same, definitely is not. Caerwine 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reddogg

nn wrestler for the nnXtreme Wrestling Entertainment which I placed in AFD as well Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Can Man Alexis Mercedes Bobby Changler Chad Andrews Craig McDonald Damien Braddeck Dane Stratmore Dark Phoenix Draven Grayco James Christopher Mark McMonney The Priest Sean Of The Dead Shane Stratmore Trace Chambers Vinnie Capelli

All nn wrestlers from the nn Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment which I placed on AFD already Delete all --JAranda | watz sup 01:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Channel4.cc

Doesn't meet notability requirements for WP:MUSIC. Probably vanity. --Whitejay251 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (will note that I put the two that were in this list in a "magic clubs" category) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic clubs

Pointless list. Not notable/worthy of a list. Incomplete and very unlikely that list could grow into anything useful. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Krash 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thanks for reverting anons where necessary. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snickerbilly

I could find nothing to verify the existence of such a term. gren グレン 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is a real term. It is a local thing around this area. I would leave it up. - CentipedeX, 08:30, 14 October 2005 (preceding unsigned comment by 70.19.247.103 (talk · contribs) )


This is a term used around the middlesex Massachusetts county. I'd keep it because it is historic to a farm in Ma that is popular because of this term. (Preceding comment by 71.192.161.220 (talk · contribs), who also removed the three votes to delete by GraemeL, CLW and Isotope23 -- said votes have been restored.)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

(NOTE: A new article for a different John Robert Powers was created by me. - Ted Wilkes 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all three Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Powers

(NOTE: A new article for a different John Robert Powers was created by me. - Ted Wilkes 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

nom&vote delete Apparently non-notable guitar player for non-notable band. Google search for: "guitar player" "John Robert Powers" "marina del rey" revealed no hits User:Daniel Lotspeich 17:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I add D300 and Dick Dieselberg to this nomination. Their notability appears to be exactly the same as this person's. (Oh, and Delete. No Google hits or evidence of notability). DJ Clayworth 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. delete all three. do they all need there own separate AFD or can an administrator take 'em all down?--User:Daniel Lotspeich 17:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The qwesi

Vanity, non notable, just 352 hits, groups named there are NN as well (Her Rigormorts: 21 hits, The Studiofix: 209 hits, Volkpenis: 2 hits) -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hmm, oddly enough, I actually know the people in these bands. While I wish them well (and I think some of their songs have real potential), they aren't notable yet. Sigh. It's a rough day when my Wikipedian integrity wars with my sense of friendship, but hey, so it goes. Besides, they're better off making music instead of creating articles about themselves. Anville 10:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2-amino-1-oxodisilanol

Unverifiable. Note that the "inventor" is the student president at University of Alaska Fairbanks[3] Pburka 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could be touching on a broader topic of what organic compounds should be incorporated into wikipedia. I have a copy of the Merck Index lying around, which I could open up and start entering all kinds of random chemicals. Some certainly deserve attention (e.g. aspirin) while other molecules like the one at issue here are truly non-notable.) --Daniel Lotspeich 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sun Adepts Refuge

Unencyclopedic. Its whole content seems to have been copied from somewhere else. --202.156.6.61 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep 11 Keep, 7 Merge Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Day of Atonement, Christian and Feast of Tabernacles, Christian

These two articles are forks of Jewish holidays to allow for the fact that members of the Church of God observe these as well. They lack individual merits, and I'd recommend a merge on this one. JFW | T@lk 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the two articles contain substantial information not included in the Yom Kippur and Sukkot articles, the latter article doesn't mention Christian observation of the holiday at all. The two articles can definitely stand alone, and are separate topics from the Jewish holidays, so should not be merged.--Kewp (t) 14:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actual information. Trollderella 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As many have stated above, there is a substantial portion of this religious group's celebration that is distinct from the traditional Jewish celebrations on the same day.--eleuthero 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Day of Atonement, Christian into Church of God... barring this (and one could make a case for not doing this because there are other small Christian sects that apparently recognize this day), I will do a rewrite the article if the consensus is Keep to make it clear that the day of atonement is not generally recognized by Protestant and Catholic versions of Christianity as a holy day. Current version is misleading because most Christians do not recognize or celebrate this day.--Isotope23 17:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit above to clarify...Feast of Tabernacles, Christian is a clear keep as it is clearly stated in the article that most Christians don't celebrate it. Though I would advocate a Move to Feast of Tabernacles (Church of God) unless someone knows of other significant sects of Christianity that celebrate this day--Isotope23 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Interesting, notable, why delete? Roodog2k (Hello there!) 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Day of Atonement (Church of God), per Jayjg's wise counsel.  BD2412 talk 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Now I did submit this article, and would like to state that because some Church of God groups do not keep this, that it should not be merged into the Church of God page. I thought that part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to have information on many topics. The Christian COG view of this time is different than that of the Jews. The article points this out. It is better not merged with the Jewish Sukkot as that article is entirely about the Jewish view, while my article explains how a minority group of Christians view it. FWIW, years ago the Feast of Tabernacles was the largest annual worldwide convention of its type in the world. I will be leaving to observe the Feast of Tabernacles myself early Sunday morning and would be happy to address any specifics. Thank you for your consideration. COGwriter 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
* I already said Keep, but wish to add an important point. The monthly/bimonthly magazines of the three largest COGs (UCG's Good News, PCG's Philadelphia Trumpet, and LCG's Tomorow's World) go to over 1,000,000 subscribers each issue. Between them, these three groups are on over 300 television stations in the US, plus have radio and international impact (there are also many other similar groups on tv and radio, etc. that observe these days). There are people who would like to know more about the days that these and other groups observe. And the impact of these groups is not so obscure as to be irrelevant. But I do not object to the titles like Day of Atonement (Church of God) with the comment in it that some non-Church of God groups keep it. COGwriter 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the articles are distinct and informative. There is no reason to delete or merge them, as suppression of valid information is against the intent of Wikipedia. Mjas 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
  1. The articles in question are about holidays that have a distinctly Christian interpretation of each Jewish holiday. If you read each article carefully, it is clear that these are not simply "Jewish holidays" to those Christians that keep them. Rather, they are holidays which have a meaning that is wholly different from how most Jews would understand them. (How many Jews would equate the sacrificial offerings with Jesus or the Feast of Tabernacles with the second coming of Christ?)
  2. If we are to merge all religious holidays that have different (or overlapping) interpretations, then the Pentecost article should be merged with Shavuot – two holidays that have the same origin, but totally different interpretations depending on whether you’re Christian or Jewish. The same would be true for Passover. To merge Jewish and Christian holidays onto the same article would ultimately fail to adequately describe either religion's perspective of those holidays.
  3. A number of Christian groups have origins separate from the Church of God that also celebrate these holidays. For example, consider the Assemblies of Yahweh and Jews for Jesus, and other forms of Messianic Judaism.
  4. In addition, some mainstream Christians choose to observe such holidays as the Feast of Tabernacles – even if they do not consider it Biblically required for Christians today. For evidence, see related articles on the ICEF and Christian Broadcasting Network websites.
For all of the above reasons, I believe both articles should be kept separate and distinct. Stephenw77 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Discounted are Dark Twilkitri (too few edits, all Wikipedia: to this AfD), unsigned keep was actually a comment by an anon, with the bolded keep added by another editor, SuddenPresence (two edits total, both here) whose actual vote is also numerically discounted, Spigot the Bear (too few edits; 20 total, only 6 to Wiki space, turned up in part to lob insults around). The nominator's userpage does have a sockpuppet tag on it, and it is the IP of User:Omgwtflolz, but I don't see why there is a claim of bad-faith, so I'm not discounting. All of which is slightly academic, because I'm calling a no consensus since the numbers are 5d-3k which is below two-thirds, there is nothing compelling to lower the common threshold, and even the numerically discounted comments do have some content to them. -Splashtalk 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Whirlpool

Unencyclopedic. 202.156.6.61 03:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.61 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]
Delete per nom & nn. --Daniel Lotspeich 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this less encyclopedic than Zophar's Domain, GameFAQs, Download.com and so on. --Dark Twilkitri 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a website that has remained online for over five years and is in fact a part of a hobby's history. If you're going to vote this for deletion, why not take down the entries Dark Twilkitri mentioned too? Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Suggesting that this site is like the links above is akin to noting that my 18 ft sailboat is like the QEII. Dottore So 08:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument could be made for GameFAQs, and possibly Download.com - I may have gone a bit overboard - but I struggle to see how you could make it for Zophar's. In any case, according to here (yes, it is marked as proposed and not finalised, but one wonders whether it is really going to change that much), an article is considered important if There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). I don't think you'll be able to find that Whirlpool isn't at least well-known in the translation romhacking community - more like it is the most well-known in that community. --Dark Twilkitri 10:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, then we should delete some of your own articles. I really don't see why Songs to Grow on for Mother and Child is encyclopedic. The point is, the site is a huge part of a subset of videogaming history, and as such, it deserves an article. It's had nearly 4'500,000 visitors in five years of existance. If that doesn't tell you that the site is important, I really don't know what will do so.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (change from delete). Anyone got evidence of the impact this site has had? If so I'd keep it. The Land 09:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site was recently featured in the book 'Gaming Hacks' put out by O'Reilly press.
  • Delete. Extreme non-notability: all of parodius.com combined has an Alexa rank of 850,000, and The Whirlpool gets less than 20% of that traffic. --Carnildo 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One would think that Alexa results would tend to be biased towards sites visited by the sort of people prepared to have it on their computer. In any case, it isn't a site with universal appeal, so one wouldn't expect it to have a high Alexa ranking. The site is notable in the translation romhacking community, not the entire population. --Dark Twilkitri 01:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was fan of the video game console emulation community in the late 1990's. I have heard of this site but it is just not notable to have an article in Wikipedia. It is somewhat popular "underground" news site about Japanese video game console ROM images translated into English or some other language. That's just about it. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although, I know for certain the website's founder sure loves softcore pornography with red hair ladies. --J. Nguyen 03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the fan translation scene and zophar's domain are notable enough to have articles, surely the whirlpool is. there is a strong case for arguing that it is the most influential fan translation website currently online. --Bngrybt 10:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Not encyclopedic?" The site itself is an encyclopedia of games translated to English that were never officially released outside of Japan. It's no different than being an encyclopedia of software emulators (Zophar's Domain) or FAQ files (GameFAQs). It is a conrnerstone in the game translation community such that if it disappeared, much of it's content would be hard to reproduce, as many of the originating sites for the files hosted are no longer online (while The Whirlpool has remained so for five years itself). I would also point out there has been an entry for Whirlpool for over two years at everything2.com, another encyclopedia site. An encylopedia site where not every spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary can press a button to change the content.--SuddenPresence 10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might have an entry there, but it's a comment piece rather than an encyclopedia entry. It was also do you more good if you didn't have a go at Wikipedia when discussing whether an article should be kept here, particularly if it's the first time you've contributed to it. The Land 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it was more of a poke at the spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary (who unsuccessfully tried to hide his identity) than wiki itself. Also (coincidentally ?), he nominated nearly all translation-related entries for deletion. I'm just calling what I'm seeing, brother.--SuddenPresence 22:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in an O'Reilly book, significant player in a major subset of the videogaming community, nominated by a fuckwit.--Spigot the Bear 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Schneider

Unverified and debatably less than notable claim to fame. Limited evidence by google search. By this nom&vote delete which could obviously change if article expanded and truly notable criteria detailed. Daniel Lotspeich 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mosbi

Self-admitted non notable band. 202.156.6.61 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete They? It's one guy who calls himself a band, making this eligible for speedy deletion under A7--CastAStone 04:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy A7. There is a claim of three members. Three non notable members. But three. --rob 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was created by the same anon who vandalized New Order, --rob 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. *drew 06:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dont delete- I'm sorry that i did that to new order's section, i have learned my lesson. I use this site for all my school work and it is one of my bookmarks. New order is one of my favorite bands (Fav songs: Regret, Temptation, True Faith, Here to Stay). Mosbi is a real band. We have three members. We lost our bassist, his mom wont let him be in our band because he is in some cover band and busy with other things. But we are real, i am sorry for doing that to the new order page.
    • Hi, I'm sorry, but we just don't have web pages for up and coming bands. Even real bands, and even good bands who aren't yet know. It's not personal, in any way. I suggest looking to MySpace.com or other free web space providers. Also, you probably don't even want an article here, since once made, its not your property, and anybody else can edit it. You're better off getting your own free web space, elsewhere, which is your own (and you can even upload music to), which you can't do here. --rob 02:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, go ahead and delete it. I just thought it would be cool to be on wikipedia.
  • Delete per above. --JJay 01:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

56 Aquilae

Nom&vote delete. What is at all notable about THIS star? There are, to quote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of stars. That's more than even people on the planet, yet every person does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Daniel Lotspeich 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, I'm a newbie and just changed my username from Daniel Lotspeich to Gaff. I want to be upfront about that to avoid any confusion or accusations of sockpuppetry.--Gaff talk 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if it was a smaller star, like any number of the smaller stars that you posted last night Merovingian? I think that all of those ought to remain here, but if others disagree, perhaps we need to establish guidelines for star notability. Simply, I think that all known stars are notable. As new stars are discovered (even if only knowable by sophisticated instrumentation, they too should be logged.--Gaff talk 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read, server space is really not an issue with wikipedia. And I doubt seriously that all 1.0x10^21 stars will ever get logged, but good luck. When they do, my vote for ALL will be KEEP. Way more notable that all the Final Fantasy and WarCraft 3 garbaaaage that winds up on wikipedia.--Daniel Lotspeich 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, it looks like Pilatus and AndreEngels are only holdouts voting to delete. Hopefully they will come around so we can have a consensus. I really cannot see how this article will be deleted without creating a lot of controversy. As Marskell describes below, a better method of categorizing stars, e.g. by constellation will make for project in the future. For now, keep the article as it contains useful information.--Gaff talk 22:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gaff, when I said take a deep breath I didn't mean it to belittle you but to underscore that you need not get overly anxious about a vote that is going in the direction you desire. This article will be kept. Twelve to fifteen keep with two deletes is consensus. If twenty odd deletes appeared in the next minute it would still be kept (and note again I have not voted delete here). So don't worry! And don't badger the one or two people voting delete—they don't have to "come around." Start User:Gaff/Star chart. I will help you. Yes, these one liner entries could be placed in a more useful spot. Marskell 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if a star is not visible to the naked eye, it is still notable. Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence. As will be every planet known and yet to be discovered. Asteroids may be questionable. Moons of planets are notable. All stars are notable. BTW I will sign this 'Gaff' but to avoid any accusations of sock puppetry, note that I am Daniel Lotspeich (nominator of this article for AfD in the first place).--Gaff 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence." No: a mass of "hydrogen and helium" is non-notable in the same way the "bricks and mortar" of my corner store is non-notable—in some ways even more so, because at least I can provide incidental details of a corner store. Stars with planets, luminous and visible stars, stars in notable constellations etc., OK. I'll wait for a second sentence here to prove something of this sort. Marskell 21:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars that are visible from where? Stars are not even in the same league as bricks and mortar on the corner store. I'm not arguing that every quark in every nucleus of every atom of helium in every star warrants an article. But I thought that wikipedia would contain the sum of all human knowledge or something along those lines. Lets start by agreeing that really, really big things like stars are notable and go from there. What about galaxies known to exist that are not visible to the naked eye? Should they be left out as well?? --Gaff talk 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Visible from here. "Systemic bias surely!" "Indeed, I'm systemically biased toward the Earth!" Yes, from a certain perspective stars are of course in a different league than corner stores but their representation here isn't. If I can't say anything about it beyond the fact of its existence (or non-notable incidentals—"red brick store," "m class star") I don't think it belongs. Wiki is not a (star or any other type of) directory. Note, however, I'm not delete. Just again, prove its more than your average mass of a quintillion pounds of hydrogen :). Marskell 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its an issue of scale. Every known star is notable as far as I am concerned. Even if not visible to the naked eye. (As an aside, I wear contacts. If some evening I do not have on my contacts and cannot see a certain star, can I vote to have it deleted?) I'm not suggesting we catalog every brick just because each is unique in its own way, but every star? Stars are just so darned big that how can one argue they are non-notable. I'm also not suggesting that wikipedia be merely a directory of dry facts either. That's why the article need still be labeled stub. But in the case of extraordinarily gigantic things like stars, I think they are notable by the mere fact of their existence...--Gaff talk 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they are darned big, but to repeat if you can't say more about them than the fact that they exist they don't belong. Do you know how many M class stars astronomers figure are in the galaxy? Yes we could have a quarter trillion pages (not a joke) with the following "8978735812cxh is an M-class red dwarf" or "3846751191olm is an M-class red dwarf" or, say, "5770192281jqa is an M-class red dwarf" but, hey, I don't think that's why wiki is here. Or this wiki at least. Start wikistars! Marskell 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? A quarter million M-class red dwarfs? That would take a long time to catalog. How long do you think that this encyclopedia will be around? Is money to finance the storage of an encyclopedia as all encomassing as this one hopes to be a limiting factor, to keep it from ever containing the sum of human knowledge? Even to limit it from containing known verifiable objects of the magnitude of an M-class red dwarf? If 100 yrs from now wikipedia is still around and people are wanting something to put in the encyclopedia, only to find that guys like Merovingian have already cataloged all 'visible' stars, then will it be worthy of entry? What is the harm in having lesser stars here alongside the pieces of magic armor from Warcraft 3 or an obsolete operating system? --Gaff talk 23:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, lets cross that bridge when we get there. For now, I vote every star stays. Out of curiosity, how much server space would that require?--Gaff talk 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously folks, write articles on all the stars in the sky. There will be no problem finding server space. There are in fact doctors around here that have an interest in WP projects and will help finance the endeavor.--Gaff talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep agree with Kappa. Jeez guys! There are only 2,000 naked eye visible stars! Wiki is not paper, for crying out loud. There is no downside to keeping this star. -- Geo Swan 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have more articles for little villages in the middle of nowhere than stars. The stars are going to be around a lot longer than the villages. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Astronomy, light pollution notwithstanding, is actually a very interesting subject for us insomniacs without a social life. --Fire Star 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notable or not, there is no point in dedicating an entire article to: Phi2 Cancri (abbr.: 23/φ2 Cnc) is a star in the constellation Cancer. Its apparent magnitude is 6.30. (As an example) The existence of something does not make it notable until we know something about it. If something revolutionary is discovered about any of the 15 other one-line star articles, then I would emphatically vote to keep them, but as is, there is nothing notable enough about most of these stars to have them in anything but List of stars in the constellation Cancer. - Pureblade | ☼ 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And these are stubs that are being created here. Not ready for Featured Article to be sure, but as stubs go, they are valid. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but stars are significant and notable.--Gaff talk 04:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Gaff, take a deep breath. It's going to be kept OK? Yes, you're repeating all "stars are significant and notable" but there is no argument as to why beyond darned big and that strikes me as insufficient. "Keep but expand"? In a large number of cases expansion isn't really going to be possible. There is very very little that actually differentiates one star from another and that which does—metallicity say—isn't a notability claim. As, I think, Martin Rees once said "an insect is more complicated than a star." A series of single sentence entries doesn't strike me as useful; indeed, creating constellation lists and having the star name redirect there might be more user-friendly. Marskell 13:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your expressed concern regarding the volume of my respirations. Rest assured my breathing is just fine. Its a good thing that the article will be kept as it along with any article on a star is notable (as per all of my arguments above).--Gaff talk 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I do appreciate your comments about keeping things user friendly. A centralized list of stars might prevent sprawl. It will be a very long list, but might be a better way to go tha trillions of separate articles. Although, there is something cool about hitting the random article link in the sidebar and finding a star.--Gaff talk 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a centralized list for all: arrange by constellation and have each individual star name re-direct to it. If not in a constellation then yes, a generic list. Save individual star pages for stars that have planets, are super-massive etc. And create a template chart: apparent magnitude, spectral class, planets (yes/no), metallicity, variable (yes/no) etc. Searching "56 Aquilae" and coming up with a list like this rather than the page as it stands would be more useful. Marskell 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already links back to its home constellation. I see no harm in having a separate article for each star. I do like your proposal for organazing stars on the constellation page, although the way they are already is nice as well. Kudos to Merovingian btw for tirelessly plugging in star article after star article the way that he has been recently. My vote remains keep.--Gaff talk 08:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add: just because a certain bit of information is worth having in Wikipedia, it doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article to itself. In fact, by having a seperate article for information that could just as easily be listed in a table, the reader loses out by not being able to compare the thing in question with other similar things. Reyk 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably merge to Aquila. Failing that, delete. All the information presented is factual and encyclopedic, but as its own article it's a permanent stub. Some stars are notable, but this star is not. ~~ N (t/c) 14:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then, merge to that list. As to the issue of "all stars", that must be decided on a case-by-case basis, but I say that stars get articles if and only if there is something more to say about them than the standard luminosity, spectral class, size, date of discovery, etc. ~~ N (t/c) 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may in fact be the most reasonable course, then maybe have redirects from the names of lesser stars back to their specific constellation. The "all stars" issue is a current issue, that maybe needs to be addressed on more than a case by case basis. Merovingian and other users have been working hard to create many, many articles on individual stars that they feel are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Perhaps a project or taskforce 'stars' could be created to reach a consensus on how to handle this question. I was the one to first nom this for deletion. However, I see that it is not a clear cut issue, as evidenced by the fact that the contributor is Merovingian, who has made extensive contributions to WP and is running for the arbitration committee. There are many, many star articles on WP now, and perhaps a more formal policy needs to be created to manage such an enormous topic.—Gaff talk 20:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{subst:void|1=This template must be substituted. Replace {{afd2 with {{subst:afd2.}}

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics

The list was interesting in the past, but now it has grown to the extent where it may become unmaintainable/unsalvageable.

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Gogeta. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan 4 Gojita

This is a duplicate article of Gogeta and also it is very messy. Super Saiyan Plough 04:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I WAS the one who added a lot of information to the page of "Gogeta" though some of them have been removed by "kids". I am only doing this for the benefit of the western world who seems to think the information they have is more accurate than from a Japanese source for A-ni-me. For those who doesn't like the page of "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita" can goto "Gogeta" page instead. Super Saiyan 4 Gojita is not a duplication of Gogeta, it concentrates on SSJ 4 Gojita only. This is a special character in the Dragonball GT series and deserves an entire page on its own. "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita" page provides more information on the character, not to mention it is the most authentic.


For user SS Plough: Just visit page "Gogeta" Do not bother with page "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita". My page provides authentic information from JAPANESE ORIGINALS with pictures, not western dubbed rubbish. If this is a web page, it would be more nicely laid out, but most people on here are interested in information, not decoration, much like crap such as Macromedia's Flash. Page Gogeta is also a messy page, information is not in any order or structure.

For people who are interested in general information on the character Gogeta may visit page Gogeta. For more detailed information on Super Saiyan 4 Gojita (the most powerful character in Dragonball Z/ GT universe, this is mentioned in the Japanese original version), they should visit "Super Saiyan 4 Gogita".

  • Delete and redirect as per Saberwyn. Gogeta in any form only appears in one movie and maybe one or two GT episodes if I recall correctly. We don't need 2 pages about him. Besides, SSJ4 Gogeta is the same person as Gogeta, just using a special ability. flowersofnight 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would want to vote for merge with Gogeta and redirect. However, the author does not want to merge. In my opinion, this means he is withdrawing his decision to put this under GNU/FDL. Although technically we would have the right to do this, since the text is indeed under GNU/FDL, I think the honorable thing would be to delete. - Andre Engels 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It IS NOT the same person. SSJ4 is an important and most powerful character in the whole Dragonball universe (please refer to Japanese web sites or ask Mr. Toriyama himself as he has approved the story). Page Gogeta talks mostly about SSJ 2 form of Gogeta and why should that page has importance and priority over "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita"?? What about importing page Gogeta's information into Super Saiyan 4 Gojita??

Erased page will be resubmited over and over again. If you don't like the Gojita page, then read Gogeta page. Do not bother and disturb the Gojita's page.

It is also very interesting to know that all of the sudden there is a group of people supporting the other page. Does the author of page Gogeta have friends or companies forming an alliance? ......or seemingly different people but in fact self-support masqueraded by the same person??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masato (talk • contribs) 08:40, October 14, 2005

  • Delete as per Andre Engels. I'd vote merge as well, but as the creator of the article does not WANT it merged, the only choice left is delete. Masato, note that there aren't pages for SSj1 Goku, SSj2 Goku, SSj3 Goku, etc. They all go under one article page. All versions of Gogeta/Gojita should do the same, because they are NOT seperate characters. This seems a clear case of you wanting to have your own page rather than doing the much more logical AND Wikipedia-rules friendly action of cleaning up Gogeta rather than complaining about it. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. Nezu Chiza 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Masato: That is NOT the point. I do not disturb other's work and do not care if there are pages on different characters for any series. I don't have to read them and do not concern about erasing other's work. I am only concerned with information. You read what you like and stick with the other page if you like. Don't dictate what others do!

The author has decided to erase the gojita page, not to waste time on the western world. Also, like we use real IP address !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.64.72 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 October 2005

  • Merge and redirect. Otherwise we face the potential of having each version of every character (if I recall correctly, some have > 3 different versions) have a page of their own. Oberiko 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crap Os

Non-notable Flash "parody" of an operating system. Out of the 2110 Google hits, only one of the first 20 seems to reference this. Tempshill 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuso

This is a candidate for a merge, except the entire contents are already contained in GMA Network, so I think it can be deleted

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

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentoon

nn website. no alexa.[4] 60.234.144.135 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreptul la timp

Apparently non-notable poem in a foreign language. Nom&vote delete Gaff 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. It really took you guys two days to AfD this? — JIP | Talk 12:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris (film)

Hoax. If the plot summary doesn't give this away for you as an obvious joke, this is not in the Internet Movie Database and a Google search for tetris film turns up nothing relevant to an actual Tetris film being in production. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BEING DEALT WITH AS COPYVIO. Assertion of permission will be dealt with at WP:CP. -Splashtalk 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zyman Institute of Brand Science

Utterly nn. nom&vote delete Gaff 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE THE ARTICLE This is not a company, but a leading institute at a major University. This article is just as needed as the profiles of the many other institutes listed on Wikipedia including:

- Hoover Institute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institute

- Kyushu Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_Institute_of_Design

- Asian Institute of Mgnt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Institute_of_Management

- Cato Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute etc.


  • SAVE PAGE - this is NOT a copyright violation. I fully authorize the use. I am Greg Thomas, the Director of the Zyman Institute of Brand Science. You can contact me with comments at Greg@zibs.com.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Djnazz

He was supposedly a "pioneer dj's and producer for eletronic music in Brazil." However, he has no all music entry, only 31 unique Google results and it's unclear if he released any albums. -- Kjkolb 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, not much discussion on this so far, more input? Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy DELETED by User:MacGyverMagic -Doc (?) 07:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HCSC

Vanity? Poorly written and nn. nom&vote delete. Gaff 05:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also think this must be a spam article. --Nlu 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as no content, beyond contact info. It was blanked by the same IP that created it (presumable by the company themselves). I think they just realized they made a mistake, and wish to remove it. We should oblige them quickly --rob 06:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bingiee Shiu

Article on a high school music teacher. He has barely enough accomplishments to perhaps constitute a claim of notability, and hence is perhaps not a CSD. Nevertheless, being involved in a bunch of youth music programs is hardly encyclopedic. This is one of the problems with having a few thousand high school articles. R. fiend 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witz

Non-notable open source chess engine. First release was December 2004 and it is described as still being in the early stages of development, a description applies to a hundred other non-notable chess programs as well. Give it time to be reviewed in magazines or attain a notable tournament success before writing an article. Quale 05:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, not much input on this one. Rx StrangeLove 06:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrasonic Soldering

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish Typewriter

This page could never be an article in an encyclopedia, not even this one. 134.250.72.165 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as stated above, this has been on BEFORE! Trouble is, it's not even a particularly good service, since there's hardly any words it can type in for you.--MacRusgail 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_14&oldid=25491786"