Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 11

The result of the debate was delete and outgrabe. Nandesuka 16:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey Momerath[edit]

nn and nv bandcruft Tonywalton  | Talk 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with above. Delete CambridgeBayWeather 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither notable or verifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Outgrabe. Kappa 01:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 03:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable band. mrholybrain 11:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a hoax article, at best nn ---CH (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey momerath and the stranglers of the heart[edit]

non-notable, non-verifiable bandcruft, if even that Tonywalton  | Talk 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above.Capitalistroadster 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominatoar. -Splash 01:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Conroy[edit]

(UTC not-notable and article is obvious nonesense. Notjim 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of assertions of notability. None actually verifiable, though. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and non-sense. --rob 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN; I love that anyone would take that long to write an article about themselves. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ _{(Contributions)} 03:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keira Knightley loves ME. TheMadBaron 04:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. – AxSkov (☏) 07:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move. Make it a user page if its a real user. mrholybrain 11:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete I saw this man during my visit to Ireland. He was in a play that we saw at the Abbey theatre. Very good too. I don't understand why you want to delete the page, I thought he was well known in Ireland?. janedickson 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any evidence via Google that an actor by this name exists.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because in Ireland he uses his name in Irish: 'Ruaidhri' Conroy. If you check the Internet Movie Database @ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0175860/ you can see his profile. You shouldn't be so quick to condemn people because they have unusual lives. janedickson
  • Janedickson's only edits are to this AfD discussion.[1] Postdlf 18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He must be real. I had to use his book during the presintation of my thesis. It was exactly as described. I can't vouch for the other information though. Jestermax 22:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What book, Jester? I can't find any books by a Rory Conroy in my unis' library or on Amazon. And I can't find any eprints by Rory Conroy on the arXiv, which would be very strange if this alleged person was ever a promising young physicist.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies CH, I was refering to the book containing his paper on sexuality in ancient Ireland. This was published in 'New agendas in Irish prehistory : papers in commemoration of Liz Anderson / edited by Angela Desmond ... [et al.] in 2000. I don't know about his physics background ---jestermax 15:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jestermax's only edits are to this AfD discussion.[2] Postdlf 18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. Google (etc.) research indicates that there appears to be a minor Irish actor with this name, but there's absolutely no verification of any of the other material, which appears fanciful and hoaxish. Needs sourcing. MCB 22:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's either a hoax or it's Rory Conroy's personal delusions writ small. | Keithlaw 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend I don't know who wrote this, but his 'associations' with Keira Knightly amounted to them both attending a charity function in Co Down a few months ago. Rory Conroy is a real person who WAS a physicist, but it seems like a fan may have gotten a bit over enthusiastic. Since I have the interview with him in Physics' Today, I would recommend amending the text rather than deleting. | ShaolinvsNinja 23:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ShaolinvsNinja, can you provide a link to the alleged Physics Today article? I read that, but might have missed this particular article.---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaolinvsninja's first two edits.[3] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can provide hard evidence that some of the claims made are both verifiable and true, in which case I'll change my vote---CH (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why delete an accurate account of one of Ireland's great unsung heroes? Mr. Conroy is an influence to everyone in Ireland and is adored by thousands---CH (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by neither CH nor Colossus, but 13.8.125.11, who also voted as "Ninja420" below.[4] Postdlf 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend I saw him on Irish TV last night (11 Sept 05)FFS! I cant understand the whole "its not on the internet so it must not be true" attitute of some people. What did you do before the internet??I cant remeber the physics stuff, but i never did care much for him as an actor, personally i think he stinks!NippyChippy
  • User's only edit.[5] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. Even if the Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy (which is suspect; see picture of Ruaidhri Conroy here), the additional accolades aren’t true. The "International Astro and Theoretical Physics Consortium" doesn't exist, nor does the album The Transformed Man 2. Whoever's putting up all this stuff is infecting other articles with the nonsense, too: e.g., having [Johnny Cash] collaborate on an album after Cash's death. (Also notable is that the pages of Cash, [Trent Reznor], and [Woody Allen] reference Conroy's supposed band, "Centipede on the Roof" even though that name is not mentioned in the main article— it's obviously being made up as it goes). Rynne 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend His life seems really incredible if it's true. I would be cautious however in deleting this. The article does say he's not well known outside of Ireland, so his album may not be on general release. Consortiums can also be small groups rather than large international ones. I am also concerned that where as the Johnny Cash article may be confused with the dates, this article does not give mention of these so cannot be held at fault. way2busy
  • User's only edit.[6] Postdlf 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredible if true. Luckily for AfD purposes, anything that's notable doesn't seem to be true, so it's an easy delete (despite the best efforts of our amend-happy friends). Lord Bob 19:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rory Conroy is a well-known figure within Ireland. Amongst many other things he IS the singer with Centipede On The Roof, a popular band in Ireland. He has featured in many magazines, radio and television programmes to say the least.---Ninja420 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user; comment actually by 13.8.125.11.[7] Postdlf 18:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search on "centipede on the roof" returned no documents, and there is no entry in allmusic.com for Rory Conroy, Ruaidhri Conroy, or Centipede on the Roof. If this band is so obscure that it doesn't appear anywhere on the Internet at all, I don't think the article meets the standard for inclusion. | Keithlaw 01:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centipede on the Roof are a reality. Ask anyone from Ireland who has their finger on the pulse. Granted they're not U2, but their level of fame is rising and will be big news one day. | Bad Tan 01:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bad Tan" is another sockpuppet from 13.8.125.11 (also known as Ninja420, ShaolinvsNinja, and the fake CH) - see [8] | Keithlaw 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ruaidhri has starred in enough successful Irish films and theatre productions that he can easily be considered for raising the bar for Irish acting standards, thus warranting a decent entry here.---Dr_Faulk (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC):[reply]
  • User's only edit.[9] Postdlf 18:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a real actor, just because he is not american he is not worthy of a mention?? My advice, my american friends is to get a passport and look at the world, rather than viewing it through the internet ---Seamus 19:01 13 Septermber 2005
  • • No such user as "Seamus"; comment actually by 82.6.182.159.[10] Postdlf 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never in my life seen so many sockpuppets come out for something so insignificant. It's never once happened in all my days. I mean, you'd think we'd AfD'd Scientology or something the way the reaction is. It's kinda scary. Lord Bob 18:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having to resort to personal insults shows the weakness in your argument and the gaps in your knowledge Lord Bob ---Seamus 22:28 13 Septermber 2005
      • Seamus, in your earlier post, you accused everyone who voted Delete of ethnocentrism. Isn't that a "personal insult?" This AfD started because the bulk of the content in the article is patent nonsense. Can you give us a response to that argument, rather than attacking Lord Bob or throwing around baseless accusations of bias? | Keithlaw 22:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Keithlaw, for saying about what I'd say so I don't have to. Well, except for this reply that says 'thank you'. But it doesn't count. Lord Bob 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There truth does hurt Keithlaw, if you are insulted by the truth, I cant help you. I have seen the films he is in, have you.....? ---Seamus 08:19 14 Septermber 2005
            • Name them. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Into the west" and "The Van" ---Seamus 20:1414 Septermber 2005
              • Both of which are credited as Ruaidhri Conroy (his IMDB page), whose existence is universally accepted and for whom we still have no evidence is this Rory Conroy to whom the article refers. And there's certainly no evidence of any kind that he was a great young physicist or a rare martial arts master (and I've looked) as the article claims. It's been three days, and you sockpuppets have made a billion edits trying to keep this thing, and your evidence does not exist. For the sake of argument, I present now a list of questionable aspects of this article. This list is by no means exhaustive. Feel free to prove me wrong on any or all of them.
              1. "Rory Conroy", as an actor by that name, is not known to exist. As a physicist or Irish historian, he has no articles or textbooks in university libraries that a number of Wikipedians, including myself, have been able to find. As a martial arts master, his achievements cannot be verified.
              2. The claims that Rory Conroy are Ruaidhri Conroy cannot be handily verified.
              3. If Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy, it is unusual that this fact was not mentioned on the page until after the Articles for Deletion notice went up. Surely the name he was credited under would at least be worth a mention in a fairly comprehensive article written by what must be a very knowledgeable fan!
              4. He is mentioned as playing key roles in the Irish dramas "Fair City" and "Batchelor's [sic] Walk". IMDB lists "Fair City" as an Irish television series beginning in 1988. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited. IMDB does not list a "Batchelor's Walk", however, "Bachelor's Walk" is listed as an Irish television series that ran from 2001 to 2003. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited.
              5. Mr. Conroy is listed as a recipient of the "Best Young European Physicist of the Year" award. No such award is mentioned on Google. The awarding body is the European Science Foundation, which has no reference to a "Conroy" on its website.
              6. Mr. Conroy is not listed as a recipient of the 1998 Theatre World Award for his role in Martin McDonagh's "The Cripple of Inishmaan", despite the fact that Ruaidhri Conroy did win this award. Another glaring omission in what is otherwise a fairly comprehensive article.
              7. Pictures of Ruaidhri Conroy available online (such as this one and this one) show a non-glasses-wearer with dark hair who doesn't look a thing like the picture in the article. The picture in the article does not appear online in a Google image search for "Ruaidhri Conroy", nor for "Rory Conroy".
              8. This page is supported by an unusually large number of sockpuppet votes, which, while not an indication of the article by itself, is worth considering on top of the other evidence, listed in part above.

              Yours very sincerely and respectfully, Lord Bob 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

              • • You were doing so well Lord Bob until your last point, insulting people by calling them socket puppets demeans all your other points, the source of the pictures has hard to verify, people can wear glasses and dye hair for roles etc. I think that you are confused by the use of irish names, my name "Seamus" which is Irish for James, we in ireland live in a multi lingual society I can (and do) use both names, perhaps this should be editted and the name chaned from Rory to "Ruaidhri". To the other users I'm sorry that I havent eddited other posts, I'm new to the community, but were we not all new once?? Respectfully ---Seamus 20:14 Septermber 2005
                  • If Ruaidhri is Irish for Rory (which, to my very considerable surprise, it actually seems to be!), then why why why wasn't his actual freakin' name mentioned in the article?!? He's credited under Ruaidhri everywhere. He appears as "Rory Conroy" nowhere. Two of the credits in the article, if IMDB is to be believed, are absolute lies. His academic background seems to be total fiction. The stuff on martial arts seems to be dubious at best. There are important omissions and facts that are false in the pre-AfD'd article (and in the present version). Heck, for all I know the author of the article also happens to be named "Rory Conroy" and is doing his damndest to pass himself off as the more famous Ruaidhri. You say that my referring to sockpuppets when a bunch of first-time users and anonymous IPs unanimously vote to keep an article demeans my other points. I could have called you anything I want but it wouldn't change the reality that my points are real, unassailled facts that could be disproved very easily if the article were actually true. A reference on the ESF's website to Conroy's award. Known and documented pseudonyms that he also performs and writes under, so as to explain the discrepancies in the claimed and his actual credits. Something on his martial arts work, or his album. Proof of his involvement with Sigur Ros during their December 2004 Irish concert stop, despite the fact that their official page claims they neither toured in December 2004 nor appeared in Ireland all of that year. If you could actually verify all of those things, my argument would collapse utterly. But you can't. That's why you haven't, despite repeated calls from different editors to do so. That's why the only way you can try and win this AfD is by flooding the ballot box, rather than by actually convincing us of your point of view. I don't care if you think it cheapens my argument: this vote is supported by sockpuppets, barring you actually revealing solid evidence this vote will be to delete, and this hoax of an article will die. And I will be a little happier because it did. Lord Bob 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok Lord bob, we will have to leave it at that, i have never said anything other than I know he is an actor, i'm not that well informed on his musical career etc, I do know he is an actor, thats all. I cant answer for the person who worte the article in its past or present form because I dont know who did it. I came across this by accident (email actually) however i havent been spamming this site, as my ip address will show. Keep Safe ---Seamus 23:01 14 September 2005
                • That's alright, then. I didn't mean to imply that you were one of the sockpuppets or one of the article's major editors, the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out. And I'm certainly not going to argue that Ruaidhri is Irish for Rory, and that Ruaidhri Conroy is an actor, which seems to be your main bone of contention despite my addressing other arguments in a thread with you. I took out my anger at the sockpuppets on you, and though I stand by my points above, I didn't mean to cause any offense to you (although I wouldn't mind offending the sockpuppets a bit. Lord Bob 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ruaidhri Conroy is a real actor; you can find him on IMDB and google. However, no one has given any proof that Ruaidhri Conroy is in fact the same person as Rory Conroy—I haven’t seen information that would indicate that Ruaidhri has gone by the name "Rory." Rynne 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rory is really famous in Ireland. He has appeared on a lot of t.v. shows on Irish television. His face is known to all. His band are less well known in Ireland, but that's not his profession. He was on a late-night talk show recently and told the incredible story of his life. As a fluent Irish speaker, Rory and Ruaidhri are interchangeable, and although while it's true that he prefers to go by Ruaidhri, he is also know as Rory, especially by non native speakers.---Hector5 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC):[reply]
  • More assertions without facts. And yet another user with no contribution history. Until someone demonstrates that 1) Rory Conroy is Ruaidhri Conroy and 2) that even half of the stuff in this article is valid, I still say Delete. | Keithlaw 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11] Read the full review for user of the name Rory ---Seamus 20:14 Septermber 2005
    • That’s not true that he has no contribution history, Keithlaw. If you check the contributions of 13.8.125.11 (aka Hector5 and some other posters on this page), it seems that he’s contributed a good deal of Wikipedia’s current information on Rory Conroy and Centipede on the Roof. It certainly looks like he's playing a joke to me and creating sockpuppets to back himself up. So I'll reiterate my delete vote, too. Rynne 17:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been trying to find any information on him. He does appear to be credited as Rory Conroy for 'Into the West' at this site: http://www.filmaffinity.com/en/film144297.html It also seems that a Liu Zhen Juan has been known to come to Ireland: http://www.ucd.ie/shaolin/newsletters/2003/Septb2003.html Still, nothing conclusive though. I can say however that A Rory Conroy did write an article on sexuality in eary Ireland. I have given the book details above. Hope this helps.Jestermax 20:31, September 14, 2005
  • I did some searching, and I can’t find any reference to New Agendas in Irish Prehistory containing any papers by an Ruaidhri/Rory Conroy (e.g., here and here), nor does a google search of the paper's title, "Man, Father, Priest and Martyr" bring up any hits. That seems suprisingly non-notable for a paper that's alledgely "[l]auded in History circles as the "definitive" work on the subject." Rynne 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. And worra lorra sock puppetry! CLW 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax or vanity, or some bastard hybrid thereof. And the flurry of sockpuppet support doesn't help the case either. Postdlf 19:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and block 13.8.125.11 for vote fraud! -- BD2412 ^talk 19:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to do with this, but we appear to have a full-fledged vandalism problem on our hands. The user at 13.8.125.11 behind all these sockpuppets is inserting references to Rory Conroy and his fictional band all over the site: Eva Longoria, Elisha Cuthbert, and about ten other pages so far. Rynne seems to have cleaned most of them up, and I got those last two. I suggest that a Wikipedia sysop slap a block on that IP address. | Keithlaw 20:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The vandalism, the attempts by the anon to vote multiple times, and the creation of all of these new users to vote keep on a person whose very existence cannot be verified leads to only one conclusion -- hoas. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Friday (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears this article is made up from false facts.--Kaonashi 02:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rory Conroy's life is bizarre and reads like a fictional tale to anyone outside Ireland, but folks it's all true. Just because Google etc. haven't verified these points it doesn't nullify them. Keep as is. Cat With Goggles 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user; comment actually first edit by 159.134.77.51.[12] Postdlf 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So... what happens now? Are we just waiting for an administrator to rule on this? Should I go over to the curb and flag one down? | Keithlaw 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep as merge and redirect.

Having looked at both articles, I didn't find anything in this article which I thought really added to the existing article on obesity. Given the timing of some of the edits, I suspect that someone else has already implemented the merge. I am going to turn this into a redirect. If someone else sees something worth merging, please feel free to recover it from the article's page history. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental causes of obesity[edit]

Dupicate of material in obesity, no individual merits, quotes Wikipedia (suggesting this was originally an essay). Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any verifiable, properly sourced material into obesity, and then delete. Nandesuka 01:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is rambling and unreferenced, but it's a topic worth having. Obesity is already fairly long and its treatment of the environmental causes of obesity is very light. Keep it, but excise unreferenced/unencyclopedic information and throw a cleanup tag on it. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I am swayed by the impeccable logic of Geogre, et al. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fernando Rizo. --Apyule 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges should be finished with a redirect to retain the edit history per GFDL requirements. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Merge per Fernando Rizo again. --Apyule 02:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Fernando Rizo is right that it would be good to have a discussion, but we can't have original research. Cleanup definitely can't or won't handle a job this detailed, where the duplicate material from obesity is stripped and unsourced claimed are cut. We don't have a template for "cut out the stuff that came from X." I have to say that, unless the original author can do it (which would be a case for RfC on the article), I don't think the things that need to be done can be done, so I have to vote merge with obesity, even though I agree that an individual article is possible. Geogre 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything needs splitting off from obesity it is not a section on environmental causes. I'd much prefer the "policy responses" section to become its own article, as this is a very hot potato (e.g. fat tax). JFW | T@lk 20:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. As per Geogre. Just don't clutter obesity with a bunch of speculation. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per all. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. There is not too much sourced non-OR stuff here that will survive a merge, IMO. Sdedeo 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Optichan 20:01, September 12, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Borderline but I think I'll go with not enough notability here. Woohookitty 10:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Station 13[edit]

Does a totally obscure online RPG made by a one man dev team, using BYOND software deserve a wikipedia article? Why don't we make an article for every homebrew game out there on the internet? Since when is wikipedia a directory for everything to have ever existed? A lot of effort has obviously been put into this article, there is more information here than there is on it's original website where it belongs. Their current website however, does tell us they have 18 players. Hahnchen 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. EIGHTEEN PLAYERS!? Look at the forums, 211 members so far, it may not be huge, but it is NOT 18 members. While I do admit that the game may not be huge, it is growing and effort has been put into this article (As you said) and I myself am planning to add more to the article, I feel that this should stay, although that is just me and I feel biased. - Mrdie
  • Comment - Sorry, mistake made there. Maybe there were 18 players online? As the player count right now is 11. - Hahnchen 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not GameFaqs, nor an avenue for publicity. It's already mentioned in the BYOND article, and that would seem to be all it merits for the time being. Sorry, guys, come back when you've made it big. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. True, not yet notable, but very well written. More worthy of keeping than most elementary-school articles... Owen× ☎ 03:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which, in fact, we delete unless notability far beyond the average elementary school is verified. Barno 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not notable. Fairly well written, I'll give that... but 211 members isn't enough for wikipedia notability. Fieari 03:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. SS13 is ranked 10 on BYOND itself and has a LOT more than 18 players.Gparent
  • Comment - Ranked number 10 on BYOND is not notability, I doubt being ranked number 1 on that network is notability. It's like saying your flash cartoon was number 1 on newgrounds, it's meaningless, and that's a great first edit Gparent. - Hahnchen 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. SS13 has no need to "make it big". It has problems already with morons who can't role-play and sit there killing everyone. Feh, I don't even care. If you want to delete it, go ahead, it's only a "brag page". Phoenix Man
  • Above comment is by anon user User:80.61.196.1 (which is me -- Phoenix Man). — JIP | Talk 07:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably you were accidentally logged out from Wikipedia? However your user name is User:Phoenix Man with a space yet you sign your posts as User:PhoenixMan without a space. Why is that? — JIP | Talk 09:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. Fixed.
• Weak delete. Fairly well written, but not notable enough, and still under development. — JIP | Talk
• Weak keep. It's hard to see why it should be deleted, but I don't have a strong view on this one. --Apyule 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article needs a some more work, but seems sound to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull 10:05, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I must say that this article does indeed have more information about the game and it's aims than the website does. As previously stated this should be on the game's website. As is the nature of the game's community, I suspect that the information on here will not make it to the website. It is good, but sadly mis-placed. Stephen Badger 10:15 September 11 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP is not a web guide. The game would need to be significant, not just popular. The "Osama in a Blender" sort of thing gets a lot of hits and then is forgotten. In this case, it's an online game that isn't even finished, so, to have an article here, we have to be a crystal ball *and* a game site *and* a web guide. Geogre 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Geogre. Please don't screw over official policy in this manner. This is only of interest to utter gaming nerds. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's like saying that Red Shift is only of interest to utter scientific nerds. Even if SS13 doesn't affect our life, it's still a growing game and there's a wikipedia article to describe it. Is one subject about a good game worse than the one about Half-Life 2 ? Gparent.
• keep, of interest to gaming nerds. Kappa 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 16:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friggin' internet encyclopedia! If you think Space station 13 is too small for this site, you are a snob...

• I don't particularly like the "Recommended games" links in the BYOND article, looks too addy. I would recommend listing the top 10 BYOND games in an objective manner on the BYOND article without the flurry of external links. They barely change. We don't need the promotion. As for the article itself. Delete if we delete forums for having too few members a game with 11 players online and a 211 member forum really isn't enough. A quick description in BYOND is fine, though and I would like to see this info on their website. (WP isn't a webhost). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Does it matter?* I feel, being one of the chief Administrators and developers for Space Station 13, that I should step in and say a few words. First of all, nobody really cares weather this article exists or not. I don't care, nor do a lot of the community for SS13. However, there is the problem with the morality of the whole idea of deleting this wikopedia addition. This website is here purely for the sole purpose of providing it's users with information on more than what the standard encyclopedia offers. This means users can also add their own defintions of anything they want.

• Why do you all go completely made over a insignificant post that hardly takes up any space at all? Maybe if NASA or another national space assosciation launched a Space Station, labled #13, that would be good reason to delete this addition, in order to make room for a more official addition. Otherwise, the name isn't required for anything else, and therefore your argument is fruitless.

• Don't start with this advertising crap, because if I wanted to, I could find at least 50 additions advertising products. Such an insignificant addition shouldn't be 'worried' about in such a way. Do what you want, it doesn't bother me, the original creator of SS13 nor does it bother any of the important members of the SS13 community. - AZA
  • Then those 50 articles should also be deleted. Please nominate them ASAP. --DavidConrad 07:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a matter of inclusionism/deletionism. I nominated this article for deletion, not because it was badly written or incorrect, but because I feel that wikipedia should not just cover arbitrary topics of little encyclopedic worth. I think the article would be a lot better, and do BYOND and their games a lot more justice if it was hosted on a dedicated online games/BYOND wiki. I believe if we let "harmless" articles like this exist, they will multiply, and wikipedia will just be a bloated useless web directory. One pop up advertisment isn't that harmful, but a 50 popups on a page are. If you really didn't care about the fate of this article, why has so much been said about it by the ss13 team? - Hahnchen 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. android79 20:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Space station 13 is too small for this site. I am a snob. TheMadBaron 20:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Delete it now It is irrelevant to the course of the universe and world events. The SS13 website has 3 links or something and a login thingo. That this article exists is a disgrace to my uncle's cat!! The article on socks is better than this article. Confusing rubbish. Burn it Burn it now!!!! Qlorplox

• Keep. Keep it. Wikipedia isn't being "overcrowded" or anything. No harm being done. Dukefan
• Delete. If the only argument for keeping is "no harm being done", it is not encyclopedic. Zoe 23:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is not the only argument, but we don't think it merits being deleted because similar articles about games such as Half-Life 2 exist, and HL2 is irrevelant to the course of the universe and world events too Gparent 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - He is comparing HL2 to Space Station 13. Let's get some perspective here, HL2 was one of the most anticipated games ever, used an experimental delivery system, covered not only in the specialist gaming press, but garnered attention in mass media as well. It will spawn countless mods, official add on packs and will be remembered by many. Space Station 13 is a small online game, with a tiny community, made using commercial tools by a bedroom group, more people are likely going to see the article then are going to play the game. Course of the universe? That's not your criteria for notability, that's your straw man. - Hahnchen 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Just to bolster the above, consider that Half-life 2 had sold more than 1.7 million copies in 2004 alone. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I expected that kind of answer. I was talking to the guy above that says that SS13 doesnt change anything in the world and stuff. I dont see how Half-Life 2 compares to the laws of physics. I can see the Source Engine having an entry, but Half-Life 2 ? A couple of other games use the engine too, it's not extraordinary. Why not have a half-Life 2 wiki instead ? The hack could be described it, the millions of mod his predecessors have spawned. Thing is, the SS13 entry isnt really harmful, and I dont know why we should remove it unless you really hate the game/games in general. Gparent

• If it gets deleted, I wouldnt moan about it. But realy it is the principle of it. I enjoy looking through Wikipedia because I see it as the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it. But whatever.
• keep please it is a good article and is neutral and verifiable so why should we erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 04:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The proponents of this article need to review What Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I certainly hope that Wikipedia never becomes "the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it". I for one would certainly stop contributing. --DavidConrad 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not advocating it, but why would you stop contributing if wikipedia became that kind of encyclopedia? Kappa 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not voting, but I'd just like to point out that nothing in the link you posted indicates that this should be deleted. It's not any of the 7 things listed. Perhaps you meant to point to a different section of WP:NOT, in which case I suggest you clarify. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He meant thing #0. The remaining 7 are major ones with strong consensus. But I hope you would not defend the article Pet names in Sunnyvale, CA because it is unfit for these 7 categories. mikka (t) 03:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamaliel 07:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or die. You guyssuck! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.34.50.254 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2005

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

The community consensus was clearly for deletion with 19 people unconvinced by any of the arguments in favor of keeping it. I count only one "keep as is", 3 "keep as redirect or merge" and one that was too ambiguous to call.

Phil is correct that the merger which happened while the discussion was on-going complicates the decision. This is exactly why we strongly discourage any mergers while the discussion is in progress. In order to preserve the attribution history, I am going to copy-paste the history into the Talk page for Gallery of flags by design which is, I think, the only place that actual content was merged to. In the future, please wait until the deletion discussion is complete before merging any material. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white[edit]

This article is just about flags that "feature one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white". It seems kinda pointless to have this as a separate article. If it shouldn't be deleted, there has to be some article out there that this can be merged into... --Hottentot

• Delete, Delete, Delete So a user is really going to type a title like List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white - it was a stretch to even cut and paste it! And why discriminate against List of flags featuring one or more crescents and the colors green and white? And just to be clear about this Delete Dlyons493 01:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepormergetoFlag of the United States. — Phil Welch 01:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Merge with Flag of the United States. Merge into List of flags by design. Crypticfirefly 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MergetoFlag of the United States, which already has a section listing flags with similar design that links to this article, making it easier to merge there. Also mergetoList of flags by design. — Phil Welch 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Delete in favour of suggestion by Phil Dlyons493 01:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two flags in this article that were not already in Flag of the United States' relevant section have been merged. Redirect to maintain attribution history. — Phil Welch 02:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Delete, Delete. The flag of my country feaures one or more stars and the colours red blue and white but someone decided that it doesn't qualify. Let me say again in case I haven't made it clear, the title of this page lists flags ''featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white" but there are flags "featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white" which are not permitted on the page. Sheesh. Moriori 01:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, the relevant section of Flag of the United States seems to make the point more clearly than the title of this article, making a merge there appropriate. — Phil Welch 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Negative. The Flags with a similar design section of Flag of the United States features 12 flags. Six of them do not have stars, and six of them are not coloured red white and blue. What an earth could the point be of merging List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white in that section. What on earth is the point of List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white anyway, when a flag fitting that specification is not permitted in the article? Moriori 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • The point was apparently the same as that of "Flags with a similar design", only with stricter and more arbitrary criteria. Clearly, the point is better made in the newly merged version of "Flags with a similar design". — Phil Welch 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic of the article is flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white then the flag of New Zealand qualifies. No one ever said it was flags featuring only one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white. Heck, if it was, over half of those flags in there would be disqualified, as they obviously feature stripes, which are not stars. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do your homework. You will see that User:Blahma removed the New Zealand flag September 3 because although it is red white and blue with stars it has a red white and blue something else in the corner.
      • I repeat, where does it say the flags have to only feature one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white? — JIP | Talk 08:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you hard of hearing? ):- ..Do You Homework. The introduction criteria in the article specified the following - "This is a selected list of 'flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white'. Flags listed here contain at least one star and contain three different colors: red, blue, and white". So, I added the New Zealand flag which qualifies under that specification, and on September 3 User:Blahma removed it, stating "removed flag of NZ (features the Union Jack)" and announcing some sort of nebulous change to the criteria. The fact is, it doesn't matter where you want to put a list of XXXX, if everything that qualifies as XXXX isn't allowed to be included, then the article about XXXX must not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Unless there has suddenly been a new policy adopted that censorship rules. Moriori 09:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, my reply was too confusing. I know the New Zealand flag was removed because it contains other pictures than stars. But what I wanted to say was that nowhere in the title List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white can I find anything saying other pictures aren't allowed. If the Union Jack isn't allowed it should be mentioned in the name of the list, not as an additional rule added later. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not understand what is the aversion to the inclusion of the Union Flag! The Union Flag is red, blue and white (perchance the founding fathers of America used the same colours since it was prior to their UDI a British colony), and therefore if the list includes or or more stars New Zealand DOES qualify. As does Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Australia, Cayman Islands, Niue, Ross Dependency and more .... or do not ANY of these count since they are not US-centric nations. STRONG DELETE for this very badly written article!!!! Rhyddfrydol 22:51 11 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Sorry, but before insulting the article as being very badly written, maybe you could bother to read through the whole discussion and find what its original purpose was and so what cause did that "aversion" against the Union Flag have. As I told below, I won't repeat nor evolve here anything further, but just two hints are: 1. The purpose was to distinguish between some very similar flags which consist a virtual group, so mixing them with flags from other groups does not do much good. 2. The flag of NZ was deleted at the same time when the criteria was clarified, but later someone for some reason generalized the criteria again, so now really the flag of NZ would qualify. Blahma 00:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not only is the article very badly written, it is extreme in its generalisation, an insult to the science of Vexillology, and as such no place in Wikipedia. I have seen Children's flag books which are more comprehensive. I reiterate STRONG DELETE. Rhyddfrydol 00:18 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge somewhere else or rename to List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and white but which do not have the Union Jack since apparently the flag of New Zealand is not allowed on this page. --Henrygb 02:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment on previous vote. — Phil Welch 02:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary article. The section at Flag of the United States is all that is needed, and a more logical location for this information. --JW1805 03:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since content has already been merged, leaving a redirect is necessary to maintain attribution history. — Phil Welch 04:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete everything including the page history. The Australian flag also fits the list criteria, but apparently it is also not allowed, because it has the Union Flag in it. (Sounds like discrimination to me.) – AxSkov (☏) 07:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topic is far too narrow for the list to be useful. — JIP | Talk 07:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove artificial limit on other objects. If you want a list of these, make an article at List of flags featuring only one star and the colors red, blue, and white. This is probably something that can be done better with catagories though. --Apyule 09:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is too narrow, and the information has been merged into Flag of the United States. Don't redirect List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colors red, blue, and whitetoFlag of the United States because the Australian and New Zealand flags meet these criteria but don't look much like the United States flag. Jll 10:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A really pointless article. If there are flags here that arn't on a list of flags, put them there. mrholybrain 11:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am the original creator of the article and would like to defend its purpose here. But first thanks to User:Henrygb, who put the AfD template to the article's page, because without it I would not notice this discussion at all. Well, and now: I got the idea first while at an international event, where there were thousands flags displayed by individual participants. I could easily recognize a lot of them, but there were some which kept both me and all my friends confused and uncertain. If you live in Europe and do not meet those flags so often, you really can't tell the difference between e.g. the flags of Texas and Chile, or the flags of Flag of Cuba and Puerto Rico (which is often a crucial difference, in terms of the language and/or the general background you may await while addressing the person who is waving this flag). That's why I thought it'd be handy if also we here in Europe could have an easy way how to make the things clear and see all those similar flags in one place, without having to look them up in the list of all existing country flags. Now I hope I have made it a bit more clear while e.g. the flag of New Zealand has not been included (please don't feel offended for that just because you come from there). Also, to all you U.S. guys over there, sorry, but the similarity with the U. S. flag was also not the original idea, though now it has become a considerable one. I agree that maybe the article title as is now is a bit confusing, too long and looking to be too specific. Still I suggest the article should not be deleted (because of its prospective usage described above) - maybe rather splitted into several articles like "List of flags similar to the flag of Texas", "List of flags similar to the flag of Cuba" etc. But I just alert that with this solution, another problems appear like which flag is the "base one" and which are the "derivatives" etc. Also, I think that unless you prove that all of the listed flags have been inspired by the U.S. flag, this article should not be merged with that one, since then its original purpose will vanish as you will have to either break up the list (and along with that its original purpose) or introduce false facts into the article on the U. S. flag. I hope I have not sounded too bossy or boring, just wanted to explain my motives and opinions. I am open to any further discussions. Blahma 11:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, can I feel offended about the New Zealand flag not being included when I don't come from there (in fact I come from pretty much directly across the entire world from New Zealand)? If the title of the article is List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white, it doesn't make sense not to include a flag featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white, as the New Zealand flag does. If you want to amend the rules to exclude flags that feature the Union Jack, rename the article to List of flags featuring one or more stars and the colours red, blue and white but not the Union Jack. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, let's do that and rename the article. Anyway, I too am not really contented with its current name. But first we have to settle on some name, which would clearly describe the list. I think that you too will agree that the title you just proposed ("...but not the Union Jack") would make the title even longer and less straight-forward. I have tried to give explanation on the purpose of this list above, but fail to find out a good name so far. Probably we should start from the other end, and not give the name according to what the flags feature, but rather to the similarities. Still, my worries about listing it simply as being derivates of the U. S. flags are expressed above. If you propose a fitting solution for another name, I am for rename as well. Blahma 12:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet something worth thinking over: Originally I did not intent to include the U. S. flag in the list and the goal was just to list all flags which feature a single star and the colors mentioned. Also the title, which originally was List of flags featuring a star and the colors red, blue and white, respected this original intention. However, somehow also I got influenced by the ubiquitous U. S. flag and decided to include this as well, maybe also because of historical reasons and its relationship with some of those flags already listed. Now I think I could withdraw from it (also in order to make the original purpose of showing just really similar flags together), so we could resign on listing the U. S. flag, which would make it easier to find a suitable title for the article (maybe something which would include lone star flags, as this is a common enough term which could constitute a group of flags - but take this just as an idea). Blahma 12:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have images of flags. Pilatus 12:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just what I feel to be bad on the List of flags by design. It features only a list of links, while only by listing images as well you make the list really well aranged and easy to be used to serve its original purpose, as I described above. Blahma 12:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoList of flags by design. If you want to, change that to a gallery of flags by design. — Phil Welch 12:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agallery of flags by design would not be a bad idea at all. Actually I recall I originally wanted to include this group of flags in the List of flags by design, but after finding out a list would not satisfy the purpose of the article (distinguishing between similar flags), I decided to start a new article. If we would make the present List of flags by design into a gallery (which I think would be a good idea, since if one is focused at the design, it would be good if they could see the designs immediately and all at once, instead of having to click on each of the links), then we could also easily incorporate the contents of this article into such a gallery and this article would become superfluous (and could be also redirected to that gallery). Blahma 12:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to help? I've gallerized the first section. As soon as we finish the whole thing let's do a page move to Gallery of flags by design, redirect the article in question, and call it a day. — Phil Welch 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I care to help. Started somewhere from the end so as not to interfere, and have already made one section and going to gallerize further until the job is done. Just did not want to start myself since I was not sure if the decision had already been taken to start this. Thanks for doing the first step :) Blahma 13:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bury and don't even think of merging. Ahahahaha! What next? List of apostles that end with "eter"? :-D / Peter ^Isotalo 13:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, horribly POV and US-centric, violates WP:NOR, article claims "Ultimately, the designs of these flags are derived from the Flag of the United States." Alphax ^τεχ 13:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I really do not consider this work of mine US-centric. I live in the middle of Europe and if you would bother to read my comments above, the idea was not related with the US flag at all already from its very beginning. The only sentence which may seem US-centric is really the one you cite, but that has been added by another user (not me) and since I did not understand its perfect meaning (not a native speaker of English, sorry :p), I kept it there. If you feel incomfort with that sentence, feel free to modify it or delete it. Blahma 13:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoList of flags by design or else retitle as "Red, white and blue flags with horizontal stripes and one or more stars on a field" to more accurately convey the article's original intent (that is, helping people distinguish flags that look very similar). I see that New Zealand's and Australia's flags are currently listed, but these are quite easily distinguished by the distinctive Union Jack element. They should get their own page or section in List of flags by design, which would collect all the current and past flags encorporating the Union Jack. The article should not be deleted entirely, because it does have a valuable use for those of us interested in identifying flags and their countries. Rohirok 16:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Incredibly narrow and subjective list. I like Phil's gallery idea if we need somewhere to help distiguish flags -- lists like this could get out of hand quickly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. android79 20:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. After the above discussion I have changed my opinion. Now I agree that the article may be got rid of, but for archival purpose that it should preferably be redirected to the one it got merged with, which now is List of flags by design#Object-Pentagram and hopefully will soon be moved to Gallery of flags by design#Object-Pentagram or something similar. Also because of that job being almost done at this moment, I think we have reached a consensus and there is not much sense in discussing this further. I have placed my last words and a personal opinion on what has been happening with the article and why I reacted in the ways I reacted into the article's discussion page. That's it. Blahma 22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is a satisfactory listing on the web of all the variants of flags throughout the world - with stars, crescents, colours red, yellow, blue, wavy lights, lions rampant etc etc - refer to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/keyword.html - an external link to a flags page to this site would be far better than individual wikipedia articles on the many hundreds of variations in flags throughout the world (and yes this includes flags outwith the United States of America! Rhyddfrydol 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bizzare way to categorise information. If it's merged as suggested I won't complain, but do not treat that comment as a vote for keep. Sabine's Sunbird 23:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to imaginary listwiki or triviawiki. >>sparkit|TALK<< 01:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Gallery of flags by design is live, and List of flags by color and List of flags by number of colors are next up. Since this article is being merged into these new galleries, I think (although I'm not certain) we're legally obligated to keep the attribution history one way or another and thus deletion is impossible. Since it's very unlikely any good article can be created at this title, I suggest we are forced to accept a redirect as our only remaining option, and as a remarkably harmless option at that. — Phil Welch 03:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC), 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly list --TimPope 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ........... (for the above reasons) --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistic Creationism[edit]

Article represents one person's philosophy, rather than a genuine movement or school of thought. Article is also nonsensical, as creationism refers to theories regarding theistic cosmological origins.Rohirok 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. — Phil Welch 01:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
• Delete. Neologism, personal essay, original research. Note that no source citations are given that would suggest any significant use of the term or the concept. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Originally researched essay. Amren ^(talk) 01:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From a google, there seems to be something out there, though insignificant. Tintin 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did a google. There were plenty of articles with "atheistic" and "creationism," but I found only two links, both to the same very brief personal essay, that contained "atheistic creationism." Interestingly, the essay revision is dated July 1 of this year--the same as the Wikipedia article and the 3 revisions made by Bokkibear. I suspect Bokkibear is one and the same as Chris Richard Harter (AKA Chris Harter, AKA C. Richard Harter), and that this "atheistic creationism" is his own pet idea. Are there any articles on the subject by other authors, or any scholarly apologies reconciling creationism with atheism?Rohirok 03:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still not sure. Raëlism page says that they believes that scientifically advanced extraterrestrials created life on Earth through genetic engineering. If this is a belief that is followed by many and atheistic creationism is the only term that correctly describes it, we may keep this page. Alternately, redirect as suggested by AxSkov is also fine. Tintin 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I googled. Looks like a neologism that numerous people have concurrantly come up with, usually as a joke. I see no reputable sources that use the term. Thus, as a neologism, it needn't be on wikipedia. Fieari 04:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• RedirecttoRaëlism. – AxSkov (☏) 07:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Pjacobi 10:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, and someone will claim to be any adjective+noun. Essay. Geogre 11:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after reading the Raëlism page, I do not think it could be correctly called atheist. They believe all the prophets of the religions were sent by the Elohim, aliens they look upon like Gods, furthermore they believe their leader Rael, to be a prophet of the Elohim. I think they could be called a religion. --Revolución (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment also if this helps, the Raëlism article states that Rael applied for tax exempt religious status when he immigrated to Canada. --Revolución (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirectToFlying Spaghetti Monster if we keep this article at all. Gotta love that monster... Karmafist 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is obviously a joke and its main "followers" are actually atheists, it still qualifies as a religion (in this case joke-religion), because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is regarded as a deity. --Revolución (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoAncient astronaut theory. Alf ^melmac 19:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Young men[edit]

Original rant. — Phil Welch 01:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirecttoadolescence or something. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 02:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails - not neutral. TheMadBaron 04:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The title is good, the silly little rant is not. In fact, heck. I'm going to redirect it to adolescence right now. (I didn't remove any of the other text of the page, since it said not to, but it redirects anyway) (also, please let me know if this is going grossly against policy here. It looked like a good thing to do, but if the week really has to be waited out, please let me know. I don't venture into this area of WP often.) Fieari 04:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reverted. You can't remove the VfD notice while it's still listed. I know it's important to be bold, but this is worth waiting out, especially because the closing admin would have the chance to delete and redirect, helping to prevent a re-creation. — Phil Welch 04:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoAdolescence. – AxSkov (☏) 07:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect as above. --Apyule 08:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be looking for a discussion of adolescence when they go looking for young men, and that particular term is too narrow to be a redirect, IMO. Geogre 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I changed this into a definition; and I vote to re-directtoBoy if cannot be expanded to an article. 66.32.171.29 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's second edit. — Phil Welch 18:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I commend you for making the article less egregious, it's still a dictionary definition, and I doubt the room for expansion. Then again that's what the long deletion period is for :) — Phil Welch 18:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to adolescence, as Wikipedia is not the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and therefore doesn't need that snarky, NPOV tone. (I am speaking of the original, not the edits, which seem to me well-intentioned enough) --Jacqui M Schedler 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]