Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 2

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderdome (communal)

I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, but keep the disambig page as it will have three completely diff. articles when i write the thunderdome (arena) one. --fpo 05:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. This is an article about a bunch of guys who lived in a share-house. This is nowhere near encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Total vanity page — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:04, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hall's Law

Neologism; uncited and I could not find a single related article or Google result. - choster 15:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Original "research". Delete. Agentsoo 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly obscure video game lingo. Xithix 16:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, non-notable, and rather confusing, at that. -Soltak 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Bayyoc 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete so it can be redirected to Hall effect. Gazpacho 16:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, Delete, and recreate as redirect per Gazpacho. The article is neologistic and original research, though as an avid player of BF2, I can say that the phenomenon described definitely exists. Idiots that like helicopters, fighter jets, and anti-aircraft vehicles always end up on my team. android79 17:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but stick it in BJAODN too. Rob Church 19:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. --Carnildo 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:23, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just realized I voted in this and should not have closed it. The decision is clear however, and I've already done the legwork on the article and its talk page, so I'm not going to revert myself. If someone else wants to re-do or challenge the closure, feel free. -Splash 01:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjas in Pyjamas

Delete This page refers to a group of videogamers who have an online association. While its content may be of interest to some members of the gaming community, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia and simply serves as advertisements for the video game manufacturers. This is equivalent to adding an entry for my Tuesday evening bowling league team. I say delete due to its non-notability. Nrets 21:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep They are paid, professional team. No, I have never met any of them, nor do I watch them play, but if you look at the history of professional gaming, they are at the top and have been for several years. --Habap 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a lot of paid teams in obscure leagues. This doesn't argue for their notability. Nrets 19:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How about the fact that they won $170 000 one year? Keep.DS 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep As Schroet Kommando They were the de facto undisputed world champions (2003 - probably the year DS is referring to) and are probably the most consistently successful Counter-Strike team in the major international tournaments (see the CPL article and see how many times they appear under the names NiP or Schroet Kommando. I do agree most gaming teams do not belong on wikipedia, even most "professional" ones due to their tendency to be short-lived but this is one of the few notable ones in my opinion. The articles do need cleaned up though. --FlooK 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They are not only a paid team, but they are one of the best teams in their business. They have contracts, salaries, and should be taken very seriously. In comparison, they would be more like the New York Yankees, not a Tuesday evening bowling league. --andersoft 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • user's only edit, thus far.
• Keep They're apparently very well-known in the gaming community and have won major international tournaments. See also the vfd for one of their members (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Emil Christensen), the result was to keep the article. SpuriousQ 06:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clan/group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Counter-Strike is the most popular competitive computer game outside of east Asia and the members of this team are some of the most successful and well-paid professionals in international competition. The comparison to the Yankees is sound. --malathion ^talk 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems. Although I struggle to verify the monetary claim. -Splash 00:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please but if the monetary thing cant be verified it should be taken out Yuckfoo 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  rewrite - Tried to make it more a little more accessible to those unfamiliar with the subject, added more background information and removed the section on player movements since detail on every player is probably extraneous. comment: Regarding prize money money: In 2003 NiP (as SK Sweden) won more The WCG worth $40,000, placed third at the E-Sports World Cup worth $15,000 and every CPL event that year adding €5,000 in Cannes and another €5,000 at Copenhagen, $60,000 at the summer championships, $30,000 at the winter championships. Making for a total of $130,000 and another €10,000. Given that they also won a number of other events that year. $170,000 is probably fairly accurate. --FlooK 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per the reasons above. I've heard of this group for a long time now. --Dan Granahan 15:15, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, but clean. Tagged and listed appropriately. Splash 00:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker Max

Unnotable SqueakBox 17:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Old VFD is here - Alphax ^τεχ 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--writer with several published books, a notable blog (Alexa ~15,000) and 50,200 google hits for his name in quotes. Meelar (talk) 17:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. While the article currently sucks, he's been in a few lawsuits, has a notable blog, and has written published books. Dave (talk) 17:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, as above. The books have Amazon.com rankings of ~19,000 and ~27,000, which seems like it might be enough to assist in his notability. Definately needs a cleanup though. --Icelight 18:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep. Article needs some polishing, as well as picture, this is one of the most notorious internet celebrities of our time, has a book deal, appeared on an MTV special about Internet dating, and is currently pitching a show for the major TV networks. Fonz Cockrane 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep. He is noteworthy, but currently the article doesn't do a good enough job explaining who he is. I vote to keep as long as the article is edited to explain his notorious bad behaviour (such as the information we have been debating about the 17 year old hookups). There ought to be a section titled "Character." Potatoeman57
• Keep, cleanup and remove most all material. This is a horribly-written "article"; the only material that merits mention here conserns the lawsuit, a couple of sentences on his blog and blurb about his books. --Zantastik talk 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Tucker is an important internet celebrity. period.. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.255.215.139 13:53, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by DJ Clayworth. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axis of Zionism

neologism. Only two google links, both anti-semitic Bayyoc 17:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hmm. Nevermind. It's gone now. --Bayyoc 17:20, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. -Splash 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanpan

Refers to a game character from the Wild Arms video game. Could be merged, but the character is already mentioned in the main article --Bayyoc 17:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This should have been redirected, not put on VfD. Hopefully we can speedy unlist it and do the redirect. JesseW 04:49, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was deleted "VfD consensus" by User:FCYTravis, 8 August (lag time had been completed). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Harrington

This appears to be a vanity page, and this person is not only not remarkably notable, but there are more notable people by the same name in the world, most notably the folk musician, the professor, and City Councilman Harrington of Prince George's County, MD. JDoorjam 17:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per JDoorjam. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate for anyone notable, but a City Councilman for Prince George's County? Leave him out. -R. fiend 22:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we don't have articles on any of the others, there's no need for a disambiguation page. --Carnildo 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Anything on the others can be created later. --Etacar11 00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Still Delete: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that any of those other people should be written about either, but only that of non-notable name, this particular one isn't even the least non-notable. JDoorjam 18:38, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mj morning show

Delete- No context, possibly advertising, uncapitalized title.--Zxcvbnm 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, has a popular web-page (Alexa rank in 25k [6]). Redirect title to MJ Morning Show and expand. feydey 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - substub; if someone wants to write a real stub (or better, full article) on this at MJ Morning Show, I'd be delighted, but this adds nothing that wouldn't already be obvious, and it has no links. JesseW 04:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:58, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastien gobbe

Delete--Possible self promotion and mispelled title. Reccomend deletion unless famous.--Zxcvbnm 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. Google yields nothing and I've... unheard of him. JDoorjam 20:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Borderline, but a good rewrite followed the VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExamDiff

Commercial advertisement. See also ExamDiff Pro. Quuxplusone 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is not a commercial advertisement any more than half the pages in Category:Windows software are commercial advertisements. As the creator of this page, I'm not sure if I can vote, but if I can: Keep -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Quuxplusone. Commercial advert. -Soltak 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But ExamDiff is a freeware program! -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's still an advert. In any event, since you're so defensive of something that you created and wrote an article about, I'd call it vanity; also a criterion for deletion. -Soltak 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement, regardless if it is free. — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Listen, when I wrote the ExamDiff and ExamDiff Pro articles I was new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know what a proper software-related article is supposed to look like. Can you guys give me a couple of days so that I can Rewrite these articles to look more like this? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I completely redid the article. Is it better now? (before)(after)-- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It appears to be look very nice now, but I'm unsure of the advertising issue - we really ought to only have programs so well known that our contribution to their promotion is negligible, and I'm not convinced that's true here. If that criteria can be met, I'd change my vote to keep, but until, then, I'm leaning on the side of delete. However, no offical vote as yet. JesseW 05:00, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep by default. A merge with ExamDiff was supported by some voters and may be a good idea, but that doesn't require a VfD discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExamDiff Pro

Commercial advertisement. See also ExamDiff. Quuxplusone 18:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that this is not a commercial advertisement any more than half the pages in Category:Windows software are commercial advertisements. As the creator of this page, I'm not sure if I can vote, but if I can: Keep -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Quuxplusone. Commercial advert. -Soltak 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - but I would like to comment that I think the page was created in good faith, and it has a few elements of neutral commentary. Perhaps remove the download links and mentions of purchase, and add a bit more content about the product itself? Rob Church 19:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed the download and purchase links. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Better, but I do see the points of others; it does read like an ad. Can we cite it as being popular? If it's not notable enough, then it will have to go. For instance, not enough people have heard of Screen Capture (it exists) to make it worthy of the wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do see the potential for this to be a useful article, and refuse to vote. Rob Church 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with ExamDiff and rewrite to reduce commercial tone. - choster 21:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with ExamDiff, then Delete ExamDiff (see above) — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. You mean delete ExamDiff Pro? ... or am I missing something? feydey 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Listen, when I wrote the ExamDiff and ExamDiff Pro articles I was new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know what a proper software-related article is supposed to look like. Can you guys give me a couple of days so that I can Rewrite these articles to look more like this? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You've got 'em Alex, but you'll have to draw people's attention to it once done so they vote keep. Rob Church 02:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Before I fix up the ExamDiff Pro article, how do you guys like my ExamDiff article? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It appears to be look very nice now, but I'm unsure of the advertising issue - we really ought to only have programs so well known that our contribution to their promotion is negligible, and I'm not convinced that's true here. If that criteria can be met, I'd change my vote to keep, but until, then, I'm leaning on the side of delete. However, no offical vote as yet. JesseW 05:02, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KDiff3

Advertisement for non-encyclopedic software product. Wait until (1) people start using it (GCC); (2) it enters pop culture (grep, diff), or (3) there's something interesting to write about it. Quuxplusone 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Quuxplusone. Commercial advert. -Soltak 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Jaxl 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete advert — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as close to a substub as well as being non-notable. I like your three criteria, Quuxplusone, you might write them down somewhere more permanent. JesseW 05:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  How's this? (→my userpage) --Quuxplusone 22:02, 5 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kool Korners Grocery

• As notable as a primary school. Dunc|☺ 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a major local landmark like The Varsity, but it is a bonafide minor local landmark. I found about 200 hits each on AltaVista, Google, and Yahoo, including some reviews from non-locals. --Eoghanacht 18:40, 2005 August 2 (UTC) (article author)
  • Note: my Google search listed only 83 hits and omitted all but 21 as redundant. Of these 21, I found only 6 individuals talking about Kool Korners: 1 professional writer (Sylvia Cross), three guys who go around reviewing Cuban restaurants, and four instances of Message Board mentions. The rest are city/restaurant directories. I don't see that the notability test has been passed. Delete --Bayyoc 19:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --PhilipO 20:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• When malls and shops are not generally notable [7], then this surely is not. Delete. feydey 20:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I might be persuaded to Keep if article were expanded to show notability as a major landmark, but otherwise I'm inclined to Delete. --Alan Au 21:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in its current state. Needs expansion to show that it is more notable. — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn restaurant vanity. --Etacar11 00:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete from Wikipedia (as per arguments above), but by all means move to WikiTravel(although I can't do it myself as the license is different - but the original author could do so...). It's nice writing. JesseW 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: The article has been expanded since being placed on VfD. Also see its talk page. --Eoghanacht 17:55, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but to me, what you've written looks like a POV restaurant review. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. --Etacar11 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• As with Alan Au and Etacar11, I would be more favourably inclinded to keep this if it were written in an NPOV encyclopedic style that gave evidence of its importance. I'm in favor of "local landmarks" of significance and have written on three myself (check my user page), but its crucial to stay as NPOV as possible to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written about it (certainly not true for most stores -- where I live now is a wonderful, excellent cafe with a great community, but it's not proper for an article.) Local media coverage above and beyond restaurant reviews are important, e.g.. Good luck re-writing it in time to pass the VfD. For now, abstain. Sdedeo 01:02, 7 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverhill Bakery

Bakeries do not deserve articles on Wikipedia unless truely extraordinary. Not notable. Scimitar ^parley 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nominator abstains', following Lucky 6.9's additions. --Scimitar ^parley 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote To Keep A bakery in Chicago, Illinois. What about Hostess? Bakery or whatever should stay. --Maoririder 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't quite get your point Maoririder. Is Bob's Five and Dime equal to Wal-Mart? It isn't the fact that it's a bakery that is the problem, but that it's a non-notable bakery. Perhaps I misunderstand you, though. --Bayyoc 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is exactly the sort of thing Maoririder has been warned about in the past: creating one sentence stubs that are completely useless. As far as Hostess is concerned, it's an international corporation with revenues in the millions of dollars. You can write the Cloverhill article when they can say the same. -Soltak 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, "It is a bakery in Chicago, Illinois. It makes pasteries [sic]." is a redundent statement. That's generally what bakeries do. -Soltak 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. JDoorjam 19:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, unlikely to expand. DES ^(talk) 19:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to Abstain after the rewrite. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl 19:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Abstain after expansion. Jaxl 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, nn, no content. Heaven knows I've tried to help this user. He has a temporary block which will hopefully cool his jets for a bit. - Lucky 6.9 20:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: I just hit the website. Looks like these guys are major players in vending machine snacks in the Midwest. State-of-the-art all the way from what I can see. I'll have a go at it, but their history section was a bit limited. - Lucky 6.9 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• OK, it isn't much...but it's now a real, live stub. Changing to keep current revision. - Lucky 6.9 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll change my vote to Abstain, but I'm not convinced that it's such a major player. Did you come to that conclusion from their website, or a third party website? --Bayyoc 21:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Admittedly, what little info there was came from the website. The photos of the facility were certainly impressive. - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote changed to Abstain following Lucky's additions. I'm not entirely convinced of their importance, but given the changes to the article I don't feel comfortable voting to delete. -Soltak 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nice expansion. Kappa 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 24 at 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep regional consumer product company. DS1953 23:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lucky's rewrite. Given the original state of the article its not surprising it was nominated though. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, but articles shouldn't start off this badly. This whole VfD could have been avoided if the stub-creator had just put in a little more effort and written two complete sentences on the subject! ike9898 17:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but damnit why don't people who put these things in try just a little harder at the start? How difficult is it to describe... oh, never mind. Thanks, Lucky. --Mothperson cocoon 00:49, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was redirected. FCYTravis 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbening

Delete I suspect this is a made up word, despite the claims of its author. Redirect From the tone of the writing, it sounds like this might have been deleted once before, and if so it would qualify for speedy. However, I don't know that for sure, and so won't nominate it there. I will also resist the urge to use this word in a sarcastic post, which is taking more willpower than I though I had. Icelight 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• This article is dumbening Wikipedia. (My willpower is weak). Delete.--Scimitar ^parley 19:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete OR-Neologism Dicdef. The Literate Engineer 19:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect (without merge) to Made-up words in The Simpsons. Haukurth, that was a cromulent performance and you've embiggened this VFD. The Literate Engineer 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you :) Hey, I'm a literate engineer too. - Haukurth 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (Deletening?) It's not a word, and even if it were, this ain't wiktionary. JDoorjam 19:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Jaxl 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we'd bettering being havening deletening this article. Anyone else seen the Chronicles of George? Rob Church 20:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Made-up_words_in_The_Simpsons#Dumbening. - Haukurth 22:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Gah! I knew I had seen in somewhere. Yes, a redirect would be more appropriate, although section redirects don't work, iirc. --Icelight 22:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 03:59, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knapsack (band)

Vanity article for non-notable band EdwinHJ | Talk 18:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and NPOV issues (which tends to be a hallmark of vanity articles). JDoorjam 19:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band vanity --malathion ^talk 20:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep allmusic has them. You wouldn't know it from the article as it stands now, but this is a legit band. Friday 23:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Quite a few Google hits for a band that disbanded so long ago. A fan site here provides some more detail. DS1953 23:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The article is in a poor state but the Allmusic.com article shows they meet WP:MUSIC in having toured with well known bands such as Pavement and Rocket from the Crypt see [8] and recorded three albums. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above keeps. Very badly needs expansion. --Etacar11 00:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it looks to be vanity MicahMN | Talk 02:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to MTV rotation and released albums. --Alan Au 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded and cleaned up the article. Further to my vote above, I would argue that Alias Records qualifies as a major independent label having released records by Yo La Tengo, American Music Club and Archers of Loaf see Alias Records webpage. [9]. They therefore clearly meet two WP:MUSIC criteria. Capitalistroadster 09:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:00, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rapmaster Chicano

Appears to be bandcruft. --FuriousFreddy 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nothing on allMusic. Delete. Agentsoo 20:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; 9 google results. [10] Jaxl 20:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 00:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this foo aint shiz compared to White Dawg. -BrowardPIaya 03:16, 3 August 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of game show champions

Seems to be an incomplete, hopelessly unmaintainable list. The original author has added a postscript indicating they believe it should be cleaned up or moved - see [11] Rob Church 19:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for the reasons I've listed above. Rob Church 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Impossible to maintain, and such a compilation would be largely meaningless in the long run. Perhaps the top few winners in real and nominal money should be listed at game shows, and individual shows should list their top winners, but this simply isn't a good way to record this information. JDoorjam 19:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I guess this is probably deleteable, but I have been toying with the idea of a Game show records page, which might incorporate some of this information. Heck, I'll just copy it and put it on a user subpage, if I think it worthwhile. I've got 5 days to do something, I reckon. -R. fiend 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there are hundreds of game shows out there. Not maintainable, not really notable for an encyclopedia either as most champions included, beyond winning a million bucks are not notable. Incorporating some of the information in a game show records type article as suggested by R. fiend wouldn't be a bad idea though. K1Bond007 06:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see how a list like this would either be useful or capable of being maintained. It has a *huge* scope, so large that I think that it would be impossible to actually complete such a page. Therefore, I suggest deletion. --NicholasTurnbull 22:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Princess Peach. Essjay · Talk 08:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Peach

The only information that can currently be placed in the article is what can be guessed by the name of the article (except for the game). A Link to the Past 19:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and expand at Mario and Luigi 2. JDoorjam 19:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Princess Peach While we're at it, why are there separate articles for Baby Mario and Baby Luigi? Shouldn't all these be merged with the main character's article? Does every form a character takes deserve a separate article? I think not. --Bayyoc 19:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Bayyoc. --Several Times 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Because Baby Mario is constantly playable in games, and is noteworthy enough. We're not giving Carpenter Mario an article. -- A Link to the Past 20:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. I don't want to get into a big argument about something as silly as Mario. However, if Anakin Skywalker only deserves a soft redirect to Darth Vader, then Baby Mario should have no greater dignity. But the issue isn't Baby Mario, it's Baby Peach. --Bayyoc 20:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Bayyoc. Jaxl 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for now. But Baby Mario - who seems to be in a different continuity to Mario - is noteworthy enough for his own article. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and expand at Mario and Luigi 2. — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and develop in the Princess Peach article. When there's information about her. Optichan 22:50, August 8, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Industry heads

Delete Non-encylopedic vanity. PhilipO 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Agentsoo 20:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more like a joke. feydey 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 00:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

DELETE THIS TRASH (Unsigned vote by 66.214.21.108 (talk • contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machine-online

This page is an advertisement for a privately designed game that is still in the conceptual stages. If it gets completed and hundreds of people start playing it, we can create a new article at that time. Habap 19:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to speedy it, but it doesn't fit the criteria. --Habap 20:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Habap. --Bayyoc 20:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Jaxl 20:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Agentsoo 20:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no rank in Alexa. feydey 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. --JeremyStein 14:31, 5 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Swimme

Borderline speedy but could be interpreted as a claim to notability. Nevertheless seems non-notable. Agentsoo 20:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, has written some 10 books [12] and is on documentaries. Also this is stated in the article. feydey 20:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A search on Amazon.com validates Feydey's claim. The article itself, however, needs to be rewritten as it appears to be lifted from Mr. Swimme's bio page at {whatever that university is he works at}. --Bayyoc 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Did the rewriting. feydey 21:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite/expand. --Alan Au 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and has published a variety of books. --Neigel von Teighen 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He appears to be notable enough for someone to want to look him up. Thanks to feydey for rewriting. Hopefully someone can expand beyond Swimme's own bio blurb and booklist. DS1953 23:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Feydey's rewrite - well done. Notable academic with a number of published works. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as he isn't published by a vanity press... --Etacar11 02:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a significant figure; I've added mention and links for more of his work. JimR 11:56, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arcacy

Non-notable. One independently released album and fewer than a dozen hits on Google. Aeverett 20:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agentsoo 21:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, with only one album. Possibly delete also Don White article as related to this group only. feydey 21:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:04, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GeniusNetworks

Vanity page, advertising 13.13.16.1 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please delete.

• Delete Advertising. Aeverett 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Avert — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:48, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omnigenius

Vanity page, advertising 13.13.16.1 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please delete

• Delete Advertising. Aeverett 20:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable company. Google only knows about the company's main site, which doesn't seem to provide much information. --Several Times 20:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Avert — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:08, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Hill Bible Church

Not notable. One of countless local churches. Tverbeek 20:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline speedy, but perhaps some indirect claim to notability. Delete anyway, as nom. Agentsoo 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain not a speedy - 'notability not asserted' (A7) only applies to individuals. As to VfD, question: is being a local (otherwise unremarkable) religious organisation inherently any less notable than being a local (otherwise unremarkable) primary school? --Doc (?) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a generalised comparison can be made meaningfully. Regardless, an article for either one is just a vanity page for an unremarkable entity. If taking out the POV-advocacy (the apparent point of this article) and trivia (the bulk of the content) would leave you with just a stub... that's not notable. Tverbeek 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a megachurch. Gazpacho 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So if I call myself a supermodel, do I get my own article? Tverbeek 23:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Can you get 10,000 people to watch you? The fact that it occupies a former shopping mall indicates its size. Gazpacho 00:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, according to this it has an average attendance of 10,000 per week. - SimonP 23:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as said above, 10k people attend every week; that assumes notability. There was an article in my local paper recently, let me see if I can expand it and clean it up. 69.208.65.186 23:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, this was me, not logged in. ral315 23:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Locally notable? see also: NOOMA — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable church. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very much different than average church--highly notable.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grob Viking

Delete--Absolutely no context and non-wikified.--Zxcvbnm 20:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Could probably have been speedied, but now it's here, delete. Agentsoo 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Can people not be bothered with correct punctuation and capitalization anymore? It takes so much time to press that "Shift" key, I suppose. --Bayyoc 21:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:11, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rori

What is this page about? It's been deleted before, and is now back but just as inane as before. And apologies for the archive bit below; I have asked before about what to do with this when the same article is deleted twice, and have received no response. Agentsoo 20:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per consensus below. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • The consensus below applied to a biographical article about someone styling herself "Rori". Uncle G 12:25:57, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  • And there is a template for creating a second vfd page, but I can't find it... Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • That makes two of us. Agentsoo 21:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again --Carnildo 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment merge with loli if usage is reasonably common otherwise delete. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Lolicon, which is what this page appears to be about, is a lot clearer and more explanatory than this page, and has all of the information already. So there is nothing to merge. As per Gwalla in the original discussion below, Redirect to lolicon (just like shota redirects to shotacon.). Uncle G 12:25:57, 2005-08-03 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Knight Rogers

Delete Vanity PhilipO 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This entry encourages people of a young age to aspire a career in the field of computers. - Unsigned comment by article's initial creator at 69.212.2.162
  • Comment WP:ISNOT a soapbox. --malathion ^talk 23:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• First time I've seen that happen: I tagged it for deletion and someone beat me to the punch in creating its VfD page. Probably not quite a speedy as inventing 2 programming languages is something of a claim of notability. Still, if someone does choose to speedy it, well, so be it. -R. fiend 21:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Oh yeah, that's a delete vote, by the way, in case it wasn't obvious.)
• R. fiend: I agree with you that learning 2 programming languages is notable but I disagree with you in the sense that this entry should be deleted. This young man deserves credit for his hard work. The same can be said with the Wikipedia entries of Bill Gates and Britney Spears. Why should our Dylan's hard work not be seen and admired? - Unsigned comment by article's initial creator at 69.212.2.162
  • Britney Spears is a nationally known celebrity. Why? Who knows. But she is. Dylan is not. Bill Gates. Can you honestly say you don't know why Bill Gates is more deserving of his own article than your Dylan? Compare apples to apples. When Dylan does something that is notable (not just interesting) then try the article again. Until that, chalk my vote as Delete. --Bayyoc 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Aeverett 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bill gates did NOT write an OS all by himself in that proportion. I am the author and this is really starting to piss me off. Go ahead and delete it.
  • Bill Gates actually coded BASIC for the Altair pretty damn impressively. This Bluefeather sounds more like a Unix clone to me. Rob Church 00:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, you can get pissed off if you want, but the fact is that a search for Bluefeather AND Dylan produce only 22 hits and not ONE of them refers to Dylan Rogers' Bluefeather. The rules for Wikipedia are that non-notable (in the eyes of the public) people do not deserve to take up server space. You can't change the fact that no one outside of his family and friends know who he is.--Bayyoc 22:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. feydey 22:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Sorry - please don't take it personally, but this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. CDC (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. For comparison, I can write somewhere between one and three dozen programming languages (depends on how you count language varients), and can understand several times that many. Creating programming languages is no big deal -- it's a common exercise for computer-science students. --Carnildo 23:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be notable if the language he created had some level of usage but it seems that it isn't. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Time will tell if this changes... --Etacar11 02:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• CONGRATULATIONS, FOLKS -- not only have you made fun of me, told me how useless my languages are (even though they developed an entire os -- that's their purpose, you twat) ... and i learned C when i was eleven. i never said how many languages i can understand. i can probably UNDERSTAND nearly about three dozen as well, because learning a programming language is similar to learning a spoken world/foreign language. I know 5 world languages. How many do you know? Stop making fun of me, just request deletion of the topic. You take this FAR too seriously. Here's a bright idea, stop talking about my family, because I have none. My dad died when I was five and my mom was killed in a car accident last week. And onto the topic of taking up server space? TALKING ABOUT DELETING MY ARTICLE IS EASILY TAKING UP MORE SPACE THAN WHAT I WROTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER TO JUST DELETE THE ARTICLE AND STOP MOCKING/BELITTLING A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD. I DID THIS TO IMPRESS MY COMPUTER TEACHER. I DID WRITE AN OS. I DONT SEE YOU WRITING AN OPERATING SYSTEM AT AGE FIFTEEN. And by the way, I don't care that I just composed that last couple sentences in all caps, because it doesnt matter! This will be deleted momentarily, hopefully. I don't deserve to be mocked, and my beautiful Bluefeather creation is NOT A UNIX CLONE. I BUILT THAT FROM SCRATCH.

I may be vain, but you are critical. Stop doing this to me.

• Grow up. If you can't take criticism you are doomed in life. Let's see...you learned 5 languages and 36 programing languages by age 15 and you are trying to impress your computer teacher by posting an inappropriate article on Wikipedia? Sounds fishy. Regardless, no one here attacked you, but only commented why your article wasn't appropriate. I think you're a troll, fishing for attention. I guess you got what you wanted. This will be the last time you get it from me. Good luck in life. With an attitude like yours, you'll need it. --Bayyoc 03:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well in that respect, thanks for the luck. Literally speaking, I'm far from a troll - six feet five inches tall to be exact. Sorry for taking up 10KB of server space...My attitude towards like is actually quite positive, I'm just having a hard time, seeing as I just lost my mother. It's not fishy, actually the primary purpose of the article was to get back at my evil computer applications teacher (which in reality is no more than a little bit of DOS and Word, Excel during class) who made fun of me now that I have no parents, and she bet me that I couldn't make Wikipedia if I tried. And so a wise man said "Negative attention is better than no attention at all." Good day and keep up the great work you guys here at Wikipedia have been doing! Looks like my computer teacher will have the best of me ... once again :( Good night. PS Just for the record, Bluefeather is not a UNIX clone. If you want the ISOs, email me: dylan [at] binaryopinion [dot] com

Would it be better to simply create a Wikipedia account and have my personal page/info there? Also, I feel that personal attacks were included and are against deletion request policy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples

• Delete. I'm good friends with Dylan. Just delete his post and move on with it.

EDIT: It exists. Your welcome. xa 07:02, 3 August 2005 (CST)

• I dont care. Hey dude what's goin on? Anyways take the author (me) and delete it. xa, would you please tell these people that my OS does exist? Thanks.

• Right. I've abstained from voting because I see a lot of what I used to be in you. And I'm only a few years older. I can understand all kinds of languages, but I never use that to make myself sound impressive. If you'd like some advice, you'll stop "not caring." Now, I apologise if Bluefeather is a genuine OS and of course I'll consider taking a look - you have to appreciate so many script kiddies think of Unix clones as new systems. Just take it gracefully, Dylan, and one day; someone'll be writing about you. Rob Church 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks, Rob -- I appreciate the support and will take advantage of whatever constructive criticism you can give me.
  • My final piece of advice, for what it's worth, and you're entitled to not follow it, is to abstain, given the argument and the fact that you're the subject here. Rob Church 22:15, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete and Redirect --malathion ^talk 02:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bahamutt

I know this has been done before, but hear me out - this article is not notable. Not even on a Nintendo Wiki, and if it were on a Mario Wiki, it would be in a list of SMRPG enemies. It doesn't help that this particular SMRPG enemy is both one of the rarest and tied for least important, in the fact that it has no importance. Many go through the game without ever even noticing this creature, because he only appears as a random summon in two battles, one of which is optional. Save this for Mario Wiki and Delete. A Link to the Past 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd say Merge with bahamut. Google isn't going to help much here, you'll be getting lots of misspellings. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 21:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the current page is a stub, but I don't see it expanding and we could merge it with the appropriate game's page. Rob Church 21:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. A vague merge would be okay. ("Variations on the name are occasionally used for monsters in video games.") -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to bahamut. --Carnildo 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn mariocruft. JamesBurns 04:01, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia O'Mahony

Delete Not sufficiently notable for own page. PhilipO 21:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notable only in that she is president of the Irish Primary Principals Network, an article equally brief that was created by the same individual. -Soltak 21:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless more evidence of notability is given. --Etacar11 02:15, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kthxbai

Non-notable Internet slang. Agentsoo 21:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Exactly. Also, a dic def.--Icelight 22:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 23:12, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Splash 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs

Non-encyclopedic VH1 countdown. (c.f. VfD 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs). RJH 21:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable cable TV special -Soltak 21:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real TV show. --malathion ^talk 23:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a TV show in a long series of "awesomely bad" countdown shows that VH1 puts out, but rather than an article about the program, this entry just lists the 50 songs. Hardly encyclopedic. -Soltak 23:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and useful resource, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 02:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Verifiable? Yes. Useful? I sincerely doubt it. It's a POV list created by the folks over at VH1 and, while some might agree that these are the 50 worst songs in history, I seriously doubt a consensus could be reached on that point. -Soltak 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Since there is no way to get an objective list of "worst songs", a subjective one is the best we can hope for, and hence extremely useful. Kappa 16:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I would be very interested to discover in what context anyone would find this useful. Any ideas? -Soltak 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Um in the context of someone looking for bad songs. Kappa 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Trogga 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless list —Wahoofive (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep - Merge into an article on the entire series, otherwise keep YggdrasilsRoot 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. TV shoes and magazines make countdown lists all the time, there's no real reason to reproduce any of them. Also, there is some potential for copyright issues for the organization of a list for which creative effort was taken to put in that order. DreamGuy 20:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something like "VH1's 50 Mosts"Gateman1997 16:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE: After further investigation the {{vfd}} has been removed in favor of {{copyvio}} Soltak 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio, subjective list. JamesBurns 04:02, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatherland (novel)

This article is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. It is churlishly written, full of factual and detail errors obvious to any reader of the book and is wildly inconsistent from paragraph to paragraph. There is not a single paragraph in this article that doesn't contain major errors. In fact, the first sentence in the article contained no fewer than two glaring errors. This article was probably not written in good faith and by someone who hasn't even read the book. Rainbowwarrior1977 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think you miss the point to this entire enterprise (Wikipedia). If you feel the article is so vastly inferior than you do not just delete it, you edit it yourself and improve it. - PsyckoSama 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vote Withheld I'll freely admit that I'm much more ignorant of the book (even though I read it) than the nominator appears to be. Perhaps you could provide some examples of the errors to which you allude? -Soltak 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Since you seem to be more familiar with the book, a more useful route might be for you to either rewrite the article, correcting the inaccuracies, or start over with a new article. (In which case you might want to make your case on the talk page.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is one that is worthy of being in Wikipedia, and the criticisms you cite are not sufficient to delete the article. If you know stuff about the article, but think that is is SO poorly written, delete all the text and start again! Remember: Be Bold! Batmanand 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fully agree with Batamanand. I don't think the article is thát bad. But I'm sure we have a special template for articles that don't meet certain quality standards. --IJzeren Jan 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment.I started to make corrections, like changing 1963 to 1964 in the first paragraph, but there are simply too many factual errors to efficiently correct. Just about every statement in this article contains a factual error. Listing them all right now would take all day, but lets take the first sentence. It had 1963 as the year the novel took place, not 1964, introduced the "Kripo" without explanation, or even calling it by its name (Kripo is a slang term), the Kripo is only a division of the SS for administrative purposes, as were all police officers, while the article makes it sound like it was a "division" of the main SS. The ideological split between the "police SS" and the old "military/ideological SS" is a major point of this novel. Lastly, the detective is investigating ONE death in Berlin, not a "series of deaths." He only realizes there are more deaths much later in the novel, not when the story beings. So there you have it, in the first sentence alone, there are FOUR major errors. Trust me when I say that almost EVERY single sentence in this rather long article holds at least one major factual or interpretational error. I WILL re-write this article AFTER this fallacious one is deleted, however.Rainbowwarrior1977 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think you understand what we are saying. I have not read the novel, and it sounds like you know far more about it than us. You would be the ideal person to write an excellent article about the novel. But we are not going to delete it, because what is the point? If you want to start now, just go to the article, go to "edit the article", highlight all the text and press "delete" on your keyboard. Bingo! Then you can start writing the new article. Deleting an article, however, is a more permanent measure. This involves deleting the ENTIRE article, including its name, history and all edits. Read The Deletion Policy. We only delete things that should not have been in Wikipedia in the first place. Fatherland should. And you are the person to make it so. So, best of luck. If you need help, there is plenty available. But start on that rewriting, and soon it will be the perfect article! If you need anything, contact any of us on our talk pages, or go to the community portal and ask. Good luck! Batmanand 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And if you don't have the time or inclination, you can just add {{totallydisputed}} to the top and leave it for someone else. 69.208.176.236 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia just so happens to be a wiki. Edit it if it's wrong. CanadianCaesar 23:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep {{sofixit}} --malathion ^talk 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As the nominator hasn't demonstrated any horrible factual errors, nor shown that this article wasn't written in "good faith" I have to vote to keep. If you don't like something, change it. By the way, one year's difference is hardly a "glaring error," especially in the world of fiction. -Soltak 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Are you an administrator? Are you saying I have permission to wipe out this article and start over again? The thing is, I've had bad experiences making changes before; whenever I've changed anything substantive, and believe me, this page needs it, the previous authors get really nasty and threatening for days on end. So that's why I would feel more comfortable deleting this article first, then re-writing it, to stave off any attacks from the previous editors (who seem to be either trolls or didn't read the book)Rainbowwarrior1977 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I know a couple of the posters are. In any event, it would be much more prudent to rewrite those portions of the article that are incorrect. I shouldn't think it would need to be gutted entirely. At least portions are correct, for example, most of the character descriptions. If you do run into trouble with the original author, you've got a number of people here that would be willing to back you up. -Soltak 16:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I still think that a major rewrite is better than a deletion. If they harrass you, there are plenty of ways to stop them - mediation, advocacy, arbitration committee if it comes to it. IF they ever say anything to you, please contact me (if you want) and I will be right behind you. I understand your concern, but feel it is unwarranted. So go for it! Batmanand 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is a section that you honestly feel is not salvageable, then the best course of action is usually to copy it to the talk page when you remove it. On the talk page, you can explain why you removed it. (That way if anyone disagrees with you, there's an obvious place to start the discussion, and your good faith is evident.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion is not a prerequisite for rewrites. - Thatdog 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fifteen years old and already this disgruntled? It can and i'm sure will be fixed, no reason for deletion. Skawave 14:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks to RainbowWarrior1977 for his insightful and diplomatically worded insults. I wrote the article on Fatherland which seems to be causing him so much distress. When I began editing, the article simply ststed that the book "is a 1992 novel written by Robert Harris". It contained nothing more. I wrote the paragraphs on the plot, the list of characters, and the connections with Nineten Eighty-Four. And let me assure you, RainbowWarrior, that I have read the book (several times) and am well aware of the plotline. Yes, there were one or two little errors here and there, and I thank you for correcting them. However, I am not convinced that your other amendments have improved the quality of the article in any way. Finally, I would advise you to avoid using phrases such as "churlishly written" in the future, particularly when referring to an article written by a Cambridge historian! Thanks to everyone else for their support, it's very much appreciated!  :) Rusty2005 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just read your lovely little comment, Mr RainbowWarrior, calling me a "troll". I don't wish to be threatening, but you really need to acquire some diplomacy. If you want to be an administrator, you're going to have to demonstrate the ability to debate constructively and present logical, coherent arguments. And it will seriously damage your reputation if you start calling editors - whether they are Cambridge students like me, or Mr Everybody chipping in with their knowledge - trolls. A piece of friendly advice, nothing more.  :) Rusty2005 15:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Good article; it was a good book, too, and quite notable. Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just been reading some of the previous edits made by RainbowWarrior1977. This User seems to have an absurd sense of self-importance in relation to Wikipedia (see his comments on the Cali talkpage - he thinks he's an Administrator) and appears to make threatening and highly abusive comments to other Users on a regular basis. Does this User really have the right to criticise this, or any other, article, based on his previous editing history?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Binary Opinion

Dicdef piggyback for a non-notable blog (Alexa rank: not in top 100,000.) Agentsoo 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain - but I'd like to comment that the VFD'd article Dylan Knight Rogers, above, claims this to be his (Rogers') blog. Rob Church 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated, dicdef and unremarkbale blog. -R. fiend 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What do you get when you combine a one-line dicdef with a one-line note on a non-notable blog? I don't know either, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn blog vanity. --Etacar11 02:40, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Ashley

Not-notable. 24 at 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep By what standard "not notable"? The controversial death of this man led to the resignation of the Chief Constable of Sussex. Jooler 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Not notable" is pure opinion and not a reason to delete. This user has a history of bogus VFDs, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com. Mirror Vax 23:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  Of course it's a reason to delete. My cat isn't notable; should I be allowed to make an article about it? James Ashley is just media-hype and not a notable person... and "bogus" means "counterfeit or fake" which my VFD clearly is not (oh my god, you disagree with my assertion that it should be deleted! I guess that makes it "bogus") . 24 at 02:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Bogus = Plainly erroneous and almost certainly done with malice. 20 people voted, 100% of them for keep. Mirror Vax 02:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm... Nope, it wasn't done with malice. Not bogus. 24 at 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Edward 23:54:52, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

  All from the same site, all media-hype. Alot of people die -- this person happened to be shot by a cop; how does that make him any more notable than, say, victims of the Iraq war? 24 at 02:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  Erm, "the same site" being BBC Sherurcij 21:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for now, but I note that this article is far from NPOV. Obviously the writer thinks the police were in the wrong and doesn't bother telling their side of the story. I also note that the author's only other contribution was to the Jean Charles de Menezes article. Obviously he has an interest in police violence. On the other hand, Rodney King gets his own article (but Rodney King recieved national attention as well). If this case recieved sustained attention outside of it's locality, then I would vote keep, but only after a POV clean-up. --Bayyoc 22:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I tried to NPOV-tidy it a bit, encourage you all to contribute Sherurcij 00:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: In UK, cop related shooting of unarmed persons is not so common. --Ragib 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: But either turn it into a biography like Jean Charles' page, or redo the entry so it's specifically about the incidence, not about James Ashley. It's a "nice" follow-up from the JC page.--83.151.211.203 13:35, 5 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of unanswerable questions

Unencyclopædic; the notion is inherently PoV, and involves speculation (who's to say whether a question is unanswerable rather than unanswered?). The one question in the list has many answers, in fact; it may not have an answer that everyone agrees on, but few interesting questions have. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Man, I love lists of one thing. Delete. -R. fiend 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• An answer and a proof are different things, whatever the logical positivists say. The only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked (if one takes the strictest definition of answer). Therefore the presence of this list automatically precludes anything from appearing on it, which is plainly nonsense. As none of that even touches near deletion policy, I'll suggest inherent POV and unencyclopaediocity (or whatever). If it were possible to write (and I don't think it is), it is a philosophical point, not an encyclopedic one. Delete, by the way. [[smoddy]] 22:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• As a positivist ;) I take issue with your statement; I don't think anybody uses "unanswerable" that way. That said, delete this nonsense. Brighterorange 04:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My apologies. I wasn't talking about logical positivists in general, but rather one or two whom I know. I understand your issue having reread my original vote. Sorry! [[smoddy]] 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• What is the point of this list? (As I thought) delete --Doc (?) 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the only unanswerable question is who thought this was encyclopaedic, NPOV, factual, not original research, verifiable, possible for sources to be cited etc etc etc. Whoever made this, please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and then contribute. Sorry if this sounds overly harsh, but a list of one item, about a stupid topic, that does not conform to Wikipedia's most basic policies must be deleted. Batmanand 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was so sad to find that nothing interesting was listed. Not that anything would make sense. - Tεxτurε 22:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has anybody even read the disscussion page? The whole point of this page is for it to be expanded! If there's nothing interesting, then add to it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 August 2005.
  • Just incase it is not read, here is a paraphrase of the disscussion page:
    • This page should be expanded first and then decided whether to be deleted. There are plently of lists on Wikipedia that have no ending. So "unmaintainable list" is not a good excuse at all. Also, many have said that the only possible way a question can be unanswerable is if it is not asked. This is not true. If it was not asked, it would not be unanswerable in the first place. But since it is asked, and there is no answer that has solid proof, it is unanswerable. And just because the list is very short doesn't mean it should be deleted. It should exist for at least 20 days before even being considered for deletion. There isn't much of a difference between "Unanswerable" and "Unanswered". The only difference is that "Unanswerable" means it will never be answered. But regardless of this technicality, the main idea is still the same. And also, how is this topic POV when anybody can add to it, and the questions added to the list are the same that many different cultures have been asking for centuries? (For example, there are many questions that are never meant to be answered in the first place, and trying to answer them creates a POV. But since this list is only meant to have questions and not answers, it isn't POV.) Also, because this list falls under the catagory of Wikipedia:Incomplete lists, it does go along with Wikipedia standards.

00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 August 2005.

• • What an unanswerable question is is POV. The topic would be impossible to keep to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, the questions are answerable, for example the only one there at the moment ("What is reality") is the subject of a whole branch of philosphy, metaphysics. This is a topic that is POV, unverifiable and covered in other articles. Sorry, but I still vote delete Batmanand 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless and unmaintainable. --malathion ^talk 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable and open ended. ManoaChild 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see Template:Dynamic list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.2.175 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 August 2005.
    • Comment. Irrelevant. A list that is never closed is different from a list which is so vague as to be meaningless. ManoaChild 23:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unanswerable is POV hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 23:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - either potentially endless list or unavoidably POV. Not to mention that it would include myriad of questions who do have answers proponents of some POVs refuse to accept, because they are not mysterious or romantic enough - Skysmith 08:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subjective and unmaintainable. JamesBurns 04:03, 6 August 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amber report

This was nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. However, all of the words do make sense, and so it does not qualify. That said, the article is on an idea that the author admits does not exist in the real world, and only thinks would be a good idea. As wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I'm sending this here. With a Delete vote. Icelight 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though I agree with the article for the most part. Bad news does sell. --Bayyoc 22:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, of a sort CDC (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't exist CanadianCaesar 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The author makes a good point about media coverage, however. -Soltak 23:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: doesn't exist, opinion, you name it. Jason 00:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete per request of the author --malathion ^talk 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to solve an elastic collision

WP is not an exercise book. Nabla 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ISNOT a how-to. --malathion ^talk 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this, and I now agree with its deletion. Nightvid

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Sullivan Jr.

Not-notable biography. No IMDB hits for the "famous" project Jersey. --malathion ^talk 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity. DS1953 23:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gotta keep it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alamazaa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2005.

Comment this is the user who created the article. --malathion ^talk 23:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah man, this isn't about me. It's about my friend, the successful screenwriter, Robert Sullivan Jr. If you want to know more about him, read the article.

• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 23:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:18, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --malathion ^talk 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gorkwood

An online phenomenon eith 9 googles?? nn --Doc (?) 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete website with no assertion of notability. Friday 23:38, 2 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problems in philosophy

I'm not very sure whether philosophy can ever have 'solved' or 'unsolved' questions. Solved to whose satisfaction? This is POV and a little confused --Doc (?) 23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Good idea, but inherently POV, unsalvagable. --malathion ^talk 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, not to mention that fact any philosophical question may have multitude of answers, none of which are essentially false. Subjects the page mentions should be handled in their own pages - Skysmith 08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I've attempted to rectify somewhat the most egregious thing that existed before and completely rewrote it. Hope it suffices as a rewrite and stays. Danny Pi 20:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There is a whole collection of "Unsolved problems in X" topics, this is just one of them. Most of the other articles are little more than lists of links to other pages. The items on this page could also refer to other articles, but currently does not. I belive it should be kept, and relevant articles linked. I would say that a problem in philosophy is "unsolved" if people are still talking about it. I like the idea of collections of unsolved problems because it gives people somewhere to go when they are looking for something interesting to think about. I had never heard of the "Gettier problem" and probably never would have but for this page. --David Battle 00:05, 10 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Top Theory

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh...delete. AlbertR 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 23:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, please Mitchell k dwyer 04:08, 3 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andover Elementary School

I'm probably walking into a hornet's nest by doing this, but this is just a small non-famous elementary school with 62 students. High schools, maybe I can live with, but not this. AlbertR 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Real place. --malathion ^talk 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Andover, Maine, unless some independent indicia of notability is present (i.e. historical significance, unusual age, location of a famous event, featured in a movie, etc.). -- BD2412 ^talk 23:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. And I really must make a comment about the "real place" or "real thing" comments we see so often. Just because something exists in reality doesn't make it noteworthy. My mother-in-law's house is real but that doesn't mean it deserves an article. -Soltak 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Soltak.
  • Change to Keep. Apparently there is a category full of non-notable schools: [36]. If this should be deleted then we'll be spending a lot of time deleting those as well. The precedent has already been set, it seems. --Bayyoc 00:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be a colossal pain to tag and delete all elementary schools, but that's something I think should be done (I won't be the doing it, mind you.) My vote stands. -Soltak 00:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable school; good stub. Pburka 00:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important to coverage of education in Andover, Maine, and establishes distinct indentity of the school. Kappa 00:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative keep since I was one of the first to try and rescue this. I, too, was leaning toward a delete and it probably qualified as a speedy when it was first created. Admittedly, the school doesn't seem particularly notable and there was virtually no online info to back this up. If notability hasn't been fully established, it's because I can't find anything notable to say.  :^) However, this has been really polished by users other than me and more than one user here is active in formatting and expanding school stubs. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. This is the first school I've voted to delete, but as a small elementary school without other distinctions, its hard to call it notable Salsb 05:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this should not be erased Yuckfoo 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just because a bunch of non-notable schools are being kept doesn't mean this one should be.Gateman1997 17:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More significant than many pop culture articles. Osomec 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Should I list every school in my neighbourhood? That would get very silly very quickly. --BradBeattie 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please feel free to write articles about all the schools in your neighborhood. Why do you think that would be silly? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What happened to the guideline that articles should be noteworthy and encyclopedic? Did I miss the memo where we decided you could shove any meaningless garbage in Wikipedia and get praised for it? -Soltak 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are generally regarded as eminently noteworthy. I don't know about your country, but my country has lists of the institutions and sends inspectors round. We spend billions of pounds maintaining them, our kids spend most of their waking lives in them, and to put it briefly schools are a huge part of the society in my country--far more so than, say, the armed forces, and second only to the public health service. As to encyclopedic, that usually comes down to neutrality and verifiability. Because of the aforementioned inspections and the public appetite for information on schools, there is plenty of verifiable information about them. I shouldn't worry that anyone would mistake a school article for "meaningless garbage" and delete it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this were a person rather than a school it would have been speedy-deleted on the criterion that it is "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance." Despite the repeated assertions of school inclusionists, schools are not generally regarded as eminently noteworthy. This is an area within which there is no consensus within Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Around 150 failed VfDs worth of consensus, last time I looked. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Time to enact an WP:ASS-kicking pseudo-policy for these. —RaD Man (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable schools are one things, every school in the world is another. Why don't we include every church too, they "effect the lives" of as many people as schools do. And while we're at it, every hospital. And police stations, and fire brigades, and sewage treatment plants. After all, where would be without these real and verifiable institutions? And it's not a consensus, it's a cabal. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are hundreds of articles about hospitals on Wikipedia. See Category:Hospitals. Police stations, fire brigades and sewage treatment plants don't fall into the same criteria. They generally have little impact on the larger community, unlike schools and hospitals. Pburka 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  1. That was meant as rhetoric... I did say every hospital, thinking that the absurdity of that was obvious.
  2. That list is difficult to get an accurate number on (it has sub-lists) but it does not appear to contain "hundreds" of hospitals.
  3. As to notable hospitals, it is not out of order that would be ten in California, two in Texas, or three in France. However, As to notable schools, I doubt that there are 400 in The United States.
  4. Off topic: Disrespect for police, fire, and sewage is rare in those who've ever had to go without them.
     brenneman^(t)(c) 05:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 05:32, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia schools arguments and the inherent notability of schools. Unfocused 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as unfocused. Schools should never be here. --Celestianpower ^talk 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep schools.--Gene_poole 06:53, 5 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. And, by being BOLD, I shall redirect to clothing. Splash 00:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accoutrement

dicdef Bayyoc 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Can be expanded beyond a dic-def. It is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and was only in existence for a few minutes before the vfd tag was added. Give it time. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominator abstains I honestly don't see how it could be expanded. I'll abstain and let others decide. --Bayyoc 00:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Why not a redirect to clothing--it's present-day meaning isn't that separate. All the 1911 brittanica managed was a dicdef--I doubt we'll be able to do better. Meelar (talk) 14:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think this could concievably be expanded. It's a stub, yes, but being a stub is no reason to be deleted. Fieari 23:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• It could be expanded if someone knew the history of military accoutrements. What did ancient Roman soldiers carry with them for first aid, mess kit, emergency food, etc. vs. soldiers of the 1800, 1900 and today. RustySpear

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magners

Blatant advertizing. --malathion ^talk 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in its current form, though 13,400 Google hits [37] suggest that it may be notable enough for a better writeen article. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Probably tasty, but this article is one big advertisment as such. Delete. feydey 00:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'd encourage the original writer to start all over and try again with a more neutral point of view, possibly getting some help with grammar and punctuation. Mitchell k dwyer 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and keep - the article as it stands reads like an advert and needs a good going over, but the product is notable enough to warrant an article. Qwghlm 23:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, having just done a quick check, an article exists already at Bulmers (Republic of Ireland) for the same product (Magners is how it is branded outside Ireland), so I change my vote to Merge whatever is salvageable with Bulmers (Republic of Ireland) and redirect. Qwghlm 23:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:05, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Annex (SigEp)

Delete This is completey ridiculous. It serves no purpose and is nothing more than an elaborate vandalism. Also, what's to prevent ANY chapter of ANY club from creating a page? Collective-DZYN

• Delete - Not notable, google gives no results -Dan Granahan 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Though, calling it vandalism is a little harsh. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I wouldn't call it vandalism per se, just silly. Dysepsion

Keep

• FIRST, this article qualifies under the Wikipedia definition of Importance.
  • • The policy on Importance states the following:
      • "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if...: it is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject."
      • "If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being: (1) insufficiently important, famous or relevant, or (2) currently small or a stub, or (3) obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident.)"
    • Clearly Sigma Phi Epsilon and the Fraternity and Sorority system qualify as established subjects. An offshoot of a fraternity is therefore "an expansion upon an established subject."
• SECOND, this is NOT vandalism. Wikipedia defines "vandalism" as follows:
  • • "Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism...."
    • There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of this content is inaccurate in any way. There are no obscenities and no attempt was made to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
  • Please note Dan Granahan's revisions to Sigma Phi Epsilon. He has TWICE accused me of vandalism simply because I listed The Annex (SigEp) as a "Related Organization." I take offense at his accusation.
• THIRD, since when is "silly" grounds for deletion. On that basis, perhaps we should delete Skull and Bones since many people would consider it "silly." Just because an organization starts at a university does not mean it should not be included here. See Federalist Society. To think otherwise would mean that any organization, no matter how silly, should be included here simply for having a prominent member or two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.118.221 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 August 2005.
• FOURTH, a comparison of other fraternity-related articles demonstrates that there is a precedent for this page:
  • • Delta (chapter) A specific chapter of Alpha Phi Omega sorority.
    • Epsilon Iota A local chapter of Psi Upsilon fraternity.

• Response: Obviously you changed the article since when I first put up the deletion tag when you referred to members by nicknames. I apologize for labeling it vandalism. Nevertheless, this article is extremely point of view. To call Skull and Bones silly is a ridiculous charge. People know about Skull and Bones but there is absolutely nothing on the web to even verify that this article is about a real organization, so where is the precedent in that? Collective-DZYN

• Response to your Response: So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right??? (article creator)

• Delete Not notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, it's not vandalism, and I apologise if your feelings were hurt by that, o article creator. And yes, I believe you that everything the article says is accurate (aside from the comparison with the OJ Simpson trial, perhaps). But still and nevertheless, delete. DS 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I never accused you of vandalism. Check the history please. I simply reverted your edits. Regardless, this article still qualifies for deletion. It is a simply an elaborate vanity page with no encyclopedic information. Though it is nicely formatted, the article is clearly just bragging about your fraternity. Note phrasing such as:

The new brothers looked promising, but their hidden agendas and absence of partying skills soon rose to the surface.

Vanity alone is not qualification for deletion, however the Annex is also unverifiable. The only Annex related link I can find on google is a bar in Ohio.[38] Granted you could make yourself a web page, but with no other reputable sources, this is insufficient and qualifies for deletion. I vote for Delete.

Also, please note this organization has no affiliation with Sigma Phi Epsilon. The only connection is that the founders used to be members of Sigma Phi Epsilon, at least according to the anonymous author 66.65.118.221. --Dan Granahan 14:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone who wants to know the origin of this please look at the very beginning drafts of this article. One will see that this was originally created as a joke article. For your accusation "So basically a single web page and submission to a few major search engines would be sufficient, right???". You misinterepret the entire point. NO ONE can verify this and this is contrary to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Also, I retract what I said that this is not vandalism. This IS vandalism. Refer to vandalism section under silly vandalism where it explains "joke articles". Who are you trying to fool and what are you trying to prove? --Collective-DZYN 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • REPLY: Once again I take offense to your characterization of the article as vandalism. Do you find something untrue about the earlier versions??? You can complain all you want about a lack of verifiability or notability. I concede that those points are debatable. However, quit your bitching about vandalism since this does not qualify in any way as vandalism. [article author]

• • • It should also be noted that EDITS were made AFTER the vote for deletion tag was placed which is in violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Therefore votes should be cast based on the content of the article on when the tag was placed not after. --Collective-DZYN 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the VfD tag says "You are welcome to edit this article", and improving an article to "save" it from VfD is considered an acceptable practice. Just sayin'. - Thatdog 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• My mistake on the edits. However vanity is qualification for deletion --Collective-DZYN 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless further evidence of notability is provided. - Thatdog 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and everyone should have a glass of warm milk and a lie down. Me included... ahhh. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 100% non-notable trivia about (so far) non-notable people. Any information that survives NPOV should be put in the article about SPE. Sdedeo 01:54, 7 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audaphobia

NN, D. ComCat 04:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, broadcast TV shows are notable and nominator is in bad faith. Meelar (talk) 14:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a local TV show, only in St. Louis, lasted only 13 weeks, and has a grand total of 74 Google hits. And though ComCat has certainly posted some lousy nominations recently, he's had some reasonable ones too - DemaSked and Earth laid upon a corpse, for example. Judge each on its own merits, please. Tualha (Talk) 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:05, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Lozada

NN, D. ComCat 04:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be one of a series of bogus VfD's by this user. Guettarda 06:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly good article Tony the Marine 04:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This does not meet any of the Deletion Criteria. Guettarda 06:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. --Carnildo 06:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - the chap won the medal of honour! A curate's egg 06:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You are just an attention whore. :( —Joseph | Talk 06:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep How about the thousand other soldiers we have written about and if you ask anyone at the club, the pool, the plane, even try to find them on the news, television, books or movies and it's almost as if they never existed?? Then we would have to delete each of those as well. Antonio Mista Pizza Martin
• Keep and reprimand the nominator: Nominating articles like this one (a well-written article about a person who is notable in his homeland and far more notable than many others with biographies in Wikipedia) trivializes the deletion process. VFD is already bloated and the volunteers manning it are already overworked. Comcat, I hope you will realize that the extra work you are making for the rest of us just isn't funny. David Cannon 11:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've open a Request for Comment on User:ComCat. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat -- Kaszeta 03:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sound article about a notable person. No reason for deletion. --Joelito 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Vsmith 14:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do I even need to explain why? Cjrs 79 15:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nope. — RJH 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Considering the amount of nonsense articles that exist in wikipedia, it is incredible that someone would take the time to ask for the deletion of this article, which contains valuable info.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 15:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As Coburn_Pharr said, I see no reason for deletion, the article contains valuable info about one of the only four Puerto Ricans to recieve the highest military honor. Miguelfp1 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not meet the criteria necessary for deletion. Hall Monitor 16:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A clear case of a page that doesn't meat any of the VfD criteria. -- Kaszeta 21:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not that the outcome is in doubt at this point. We should have an article on every Medal of Honor recipient, IMHO. Tualha (Talk) 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgot to say, the article does need work, though. Tualha (Talk) 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. GoCardinal 02:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Are you joking me? Orioneight 03:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable hero. Must have made a mistake and did not check for notability. No contest to this vote and probably not even needed.--Jondel 08:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delist. Nominator is ill-informed, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Won the Medal of Honor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good article, bizarre nomination. Seanherman 13:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Give me a break. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:09, August 5, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Del O'Conner

NN, D. ComCat 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Del O'Connor. Sufficiently notable/notorious. — RJH 15:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've done the rename, and found quite a bit of info in a quick search. I aded a bit, but there is more to be done. This person is, unfortunately, quite notable. -Willmcw 17:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahem... "please do not blank, merge, or move this article...while the discussion is in progress". Tualha (Talk) 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know, he only gets about 100 Google hits. I vote to merge into Combat 18, which at 21000 hits is a heck of a lot more notable. Tualha (Talk) 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony the Marine
• Merge and redirect to Combat 18 as per Tualha. Hall Monitor 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DemaSked

NN, D. ComCat 04:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's currently vaporware. Vaporware with a couple thousand Google hits, but vaporware. There are few solid facts on which to base an article, so far. (Why the heck did the author capitalize it that way? No one else does.) Tualha (Talk) 00:43, 4 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Funeral. It's part of a funeral ceremony, so I redirected there rather than to burial. Anyone can of course unmerge and move it to burial if they prefer. -Splash 00:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earth laid upon a corpse

NN, D. ComCat 04:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--ancient funeral rites are notable. Meelar (talk) 14:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — RJH 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Burial —Wahoofive (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, not to Burial, but to Funeral (IMHO). This rite doesn't have enough meat on its bones (says Tualha the vegetarian) for its own article. Tualha (Talk) 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Funeral. JamesBurns 04:07, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Florencia 13

NN, D. ComCat 04:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--one of the largest gangs in LA, according to the article, and nomination is by a troublesome user who has nominated clearly notable things recently (see e.g. Hermann Bauer). Meelar (talk) 14:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Los Angeles street gangs, after editing down to a couple of sentences. Next we'll be posting lists of school-yard bullies. :) — RJH 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--A quick google (and google news) search shows that this group is clearly notable. -- Kaszeta 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable, of course not in a positive way. --Arbiteroftruth 06:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Los Angeles street gangs, as per User:RJHall. JamesBurns 04:08, 6 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Bauer

NN, D. ComCat 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - nomination is one of a whole slew, appears bogus. Guettarda 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bauer was, according to the stubby article, "a commander of the U-boat forces of the Kaiserliche Marine during World War I". He is also mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia as the author of a book on submarines, which, after being translated by Hyman Rickover, "became a basic text for the US submarine service". Seems obviously notable. Keep. Tupsharru 06:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Bauer is a key figure in the history of submarine warfare. I'll see if I can dig up some more info to flesh out the article. -- Kaszeta 12:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Repeated attempts have been made to discourage this user from frivolous VfD nominations (see User talk:ComCat), and to no avail. What do we do now? Agentsoo 13:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A request for comment is in order, followed by a trip to arbitration if his behavior doesn't improve in the face of consensus. I'll gladly endorse your view--this is a ridiculous nomination. Meelar (talk) 14:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • If nobody will do it, I'll do the RFC this afternoon (I'm late for lunch as it is). -- Kaszeta 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Done, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. Please go there and comment if you feel this and other VfDs of his are bogus -- Kaszeta 03:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Please assume good WP:FAITH. The nominator seems to be confused with the VfD process and taking this to RfC seems to be jumping the gun. Hall Monitor 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — brain-dead nomination. — RJH 15:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. I'd say anyone who reaches the rank of Admiral rates an article, plus he wrote an important book. Tualha (Talk) 00:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article firmly establishes notability and has been expanded since its original nomination. [39] Hall Monitor 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony the Marine 16:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Robert McClenon 16:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough of this. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:39, August 5, 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hunters of the Dusk

NN, D. ComCat 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This book is one of a series by Darren Shan which appeaers to be growing in popularity. The article does need some work though, but I have added an intro giving reference to the series of books. Evil Eye
• Keep--nominator is in bad faith. Meelar (talk) 14:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — plenty of precedents — RJH 15:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a bestseller but it has over 5000 Google hits (with "Shan" added in to avoid false hits). Needs a lot of work, though. Tualha (Talk) 00:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page needs expansion, but it's a decent start. Oy, ComCat is getting carried away. -- Kaszeta 03:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but merge, together with Cirque Du Freak and The Vampire's Assistant, into The Saga of Darren Shan. If that title is not acceptable, try splitting the current Darren Shan article into Darren Shan (writer) (which should probably be a REDIRECT to Darren O'Shaughnessey anyway, and merging all the various individual books into Darren Shan. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony the Marine 16:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone's comments. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:49, August 5, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Hoover

NN, D. ComCat 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - this appears to be one of a series of bogus VfDs. Guettarda 06:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — appears notable. — RJH 15:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Infamously notable for running a 30,000-member gang and drug trade from within prison walls. Hall Monitor 19:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What are you, nuts? Of course he's notable. Get a grip. Tualha (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is clearly notable, if ComCat would bother to read the articles and maybe google the topic before VfDing. -- Kaszeta 03:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and made an RFC complaint about User:ComCat's spurious VfDs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ComCat. -- Kaszeta 03:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tony the Marine 16:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Robert McClenon 16:20, 5 August 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.

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

The result of the debate was Merge & Redirect to David Cassidy. Essjay · Talk 08:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Cassidy

Daughter of a pop star (David Cassidy). Her only recording was a 2002 cover of her dad's hit and it didn't get into the charts. No other claims to notability. Either delete or merge with David Cassidy. Willmcw 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. This could have been done without dragging it through VfD... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I was about to speedy it when another editor added a little more info, so this seemed more appropriate. Sorry for the bother... ;) Willmcw 23:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for the critical tone. Hopefully this won't be a contentious discussion.... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 4 August 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.