Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< August 10 August 12 >

[refresh]

Contents

[edit] 2005-08-11

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!) 08:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elsamort

Band vanity. One self-released demo. Joyous (talk) 00:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete band vanity; there really should be a CSD for this crap Soltak 00:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:Music --Apyule 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity Gblaz 02:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. --Idont Havaname 03:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delēre (?), --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 06:26:17, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. -Colinmac 10:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Band vanity. No valid research purpose. dok 15:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, doesn't need an article IMO. GregAsche 20:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:42, 11 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mater Private Hospital

  • Delete, unless this hospital is notable in some way. Right now, it's just a phonebook entry. --Howcheng 00:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Revised: Keep. Did not know that it was featured on money (it's certainly not mentioned in the article itself). --Howcheng 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, any hospital which provides "Cardiac Surgery, Dermatology, Dietetics, Gynaecology, Sleep Laboratory, Opthamology, Intensive Care Medicine and Neurosurgery" is notable. Kappa 00:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and well-known Dublin hospital -- the Mater was on the five pound note.
    • Last vote by 67.116.29.1 CanadianCaesar 00:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, that vote was by an unsigned-in Ben-w 00:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC).
        • That's exactly what I meant. CanadianCaesar 01:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason that an existing full service hospital in a major city does not warrant an article. Gblaz 02:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article needs work but it should stay. --Apyule 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conservare (?), --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hospitals are far more notable than schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Places such as hospitals, schools etc. deserve articles, and should only be deleted if the article itself meets deletion criteria (poor quality etc.). Arbitrary notability standards break NPOV anyway. Cynical 09:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, hospitals are indeed far more notable than schools. Proto t c 11:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, especially Ben-w --Several Times 14:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, More notable then half the schools we keep. Gateman1997 14:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all sizable hospitals. the wub "?/!" 15:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable enough too Yuckfoo 18:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a major hospital in the Republic of Ireland. Notable. - Pete C ✍ 18:35, 15 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 Speedied by Lucky 6.9. Closing. Essjay · Talk 02:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teh l0rd of teh Ringz0r

Not notable. Garraty 00:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like a speedy to me. Heck, where on the Internet is the site, anyway? Not even a URL. Kids. Go figure. :) - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tagged it for speedy deletion Soltak 00:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. Total content was: An online parody of J.R.R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings trilogy. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 11 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; 3 keeps and 13 deletes, two moves/rename. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous pneumonia suffers

Misspelled title, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic. I'm sure you could make a "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", or "list of people with two eyes", or "list of people who died from cancer" Frenchman113 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article star This article is the current Medicine Collaboration of the Week
    • See Talk:Pneumonia for the active discussion on spliting the list from the original article and discussing the point raised above, namely that it is a bit lame to list all recorded cases, but rather perhaps limit to just notable historical or reported cases.
    • Please let the group continue its discussion over this (the same will apply to other conditions we edit in the future)...
    • I agree mispelt, but I can't move it now has a VfD tag.
David Ruben 00:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain / Comment. I moved the list from Pneumonia and take blame for the misspelling - should be "sufferers". Frankly, I don't like lists like this either and don't care what is done with it. The article was created to appease those who wanted to keep the list. Edwardian 01:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been bold and moved the article to List of notable people who suffer from pneumonia. The VFD link has been corrected to continue to link here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If people really care, Rename: Most of these people died from pneumonia. The list of famous people who actually suffered from it would be a lot larger, and obviously an impractical task. Maybe: List of famous pneumoenia related deaths would be better. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 01:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I don't really feel this belongs here, and that this article is in the same class as the recently VFD's List of notable people who have been stung by jellyfish. It's borderline nonsensical, and can be difficult to verify. However, if discussion is in place elsewhere, or an editor is desiring to be bold and merge/move it elsewhere, I don't want to slap a delete vote on it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. FYI, team, googling for "famous "died of pneumonia"" [1] gives 18,000 entries. Even with duplicates... I mean, wow. Are you sure you want to go down that road? Sdedeo 03:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least limit to people who were known for their sickliness, or who died from the disease. Millions of people have had pneumonia, and overcome it. -- BD2412 talk 03:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Man, if only I were famous, so I could be on this list. I've even had it twice! Delete, listcruft. android79 03:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is part of the collaboration. Some of this information probably would belong in the larger Pneumonia article but was, in the minds of the collaborators on this project, large enough to merit its own space. Defer to them for now. ESkog 04:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pneumonia was likely the most common cause of death before the advent of modern antibiotics - mind you, we've only had those since the 1940s when they first started mass producing penicillin. Therefore, it's highly likely that a high number of famous before this would have died of pneumonia. If we left this list, in a few months it'll have thousands of names. Alex.tan 04:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything notable people do or have if notable in itself. Only cases which have created lasting media exposure, e.g. as Kylie Minogue has done to breast cancer in Australia, would be notable, and I cannot see any examples in this llist. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The new name makes no sense. List of notable people who suffer from pneumonia would imply that all of the people on the list would have to still be alive. Perhaps List of notable people who have suffered from pneumonia? Zoe 05:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Movēre(?) to a better title. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for two reasons: 1) Defining 'famous' is inherently POV 2)It's a list article. Garbage articles don't get exceptions from the rules just because they're part of a wikiproject Cynical 09:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care if it was split out from the pneumonia article, it should have just been removed from it. Although to answer cynical, afor the purposes of Wikipedia, if a person has an article, then they can be considered famous enough to be on that kind of list. But in this case, the list is lame and should die. Proto t c 11:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who defines 'famous' ? And if we accept this, we'll have to put together lists for all the people who were killed by cancer, measles, lightning strike, or choking on candied frogs dipped in chocolate. Not to mention famous people who died (a) in their baths, (b) in their beds, (c) in other people's beds, and (d) whilst hanging naked from a trapeze eating chocolate-dipped frogs. Wikipedia isn't just lists, surely ?! WMMartin 13:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And merge if needed with articles about people mentioned in the list. --rdnk 14:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, has both potential and people working on it.Gateman1997 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this will never be a finished article. My sister's had pneumonia, does that mean she gets on the list? What about Tom Cruise, who may possibly have had a bout of pneumonia at the age of 11? ral315 16:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unwise precedent to set and the list has little (if any) value. Dottore So 18:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - pneumonia has been too common as a cause of death, not to mention as a sickness; the list would include thousands of famous historical names. It could slso include many cases where the cause of death is disputed, because historical records are sometimes sketchy or contradictory - Skysmith 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- oh mercy, this is like "people who have been hit by cosmic rays." Cleduc 06:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Off topic of this article's VfD, Frenchman113 mentioned "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", whilst many unknown people have of course been killed by elephants, if there is a list of internationally well known people who so succumbed (I can't think of any myself) then this would be sufficiently quirky that I would look at such an article. It would provide a useful starting point to consider the wild/tammed nature of elephants etc.

  • Quick Google search lists whole series of such news articles, and guess what is top of the list ? .... yes its WP's own Crushing by elephant - fascinating article on its use as a means of execution :-) -David Ruben 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's part of Wikipedia's collective history. Exploding whale is another. JFW | T@lk 00:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a List of people who have been killed by falling turtles? Zoe 20:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Keep. (7 Keep, 4 Deletes, 2 Merge). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzpatrick Stadium

Delete or Merge to Portland, Maine. A non-notable stadium not deserving of its own article. I checked its official website[2] and don't think it's worth expanding. Soltak 00:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable and little worthy to merge. CanadianCaesar 00:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Crossing out vote following expansion. Keep CanadianCaesar 21:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's a high school stadium, according to that website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete parts of schools unless something notable happened there. ESkog 04:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Mergere(?) with King Middle School, Portland, Maine, --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Merivingian. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are hundreds of articles about sports venues of this sort of size. Osomec 08:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at the very least merge with the school. --Scimitar parley 14:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unremarkable stadium --Tim Pope 17:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn as DoubleBlue vouches for its notability. --Tim Pope 20:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have updated the article. Although home to many local and high school sports, it is a city stadium not a high school or middle school stadium. It is one of four facilities listed on the City of Portland's Public Assembly Facilities website. The others are Hadlock Field, Portland Exposition Building, and Merrill Auditorium, Portland's Premier Performing Arts Facility. It also appears to be one of, if not the oldest, stadia in Portland. I think there should be an article about it and I think the current stub is a good starting point for others to add what information they can find about its history. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And, for future reference, several of these User:Maoririder Portland articles are notable places that he seems unable to explain well in his writing but are worth researching. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, after DoubleBlue's revisions.--Howcheng 20:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Gateman1997 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DoubleBlue. DS1953 21:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done, Double Blue. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 11 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 22:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Pavel

I wish him all the best in his singing career, and we may well see him listed on Wikipedia someday, but he doesn't seem notable at the moment. Joyous (talk) 00:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as not meeting WP:Music. It claims that he has recorded a Demo CD which means that he hasn't signed. While the article claims that he has had several hit singles, Yahoo Audio Search couldn't come up with any music available for Download. [3] Allmusic.com has nothing on him either. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:Music --Apyule 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, Vanity (user named Fpavel added an image and did some edits, had 2 edits on wikipedia), POV. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 02:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delēre(?) as per Uber nemo. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have to agree with the above. He does not meet WP:Music guidelines, and the article overtrumps some of M. Pavel's 'success' also. IINAG August 11, 2005, 17:15 (UTC)
  • Delete nn singer vanity. --Etacar11 22:45, 11 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.
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 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovondatr

Non-notable pseudoscience experiment, so far it's got only a couple of mentions like this [4] –Gnomz007(?) 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have travelled forward in time using this vehicle and can tell you that it's non-notable 5000 years from now. Sdedeo 02:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Insane, hoax. --Apyule 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article may need expansion but it reports on extremely important device with promise to improve human life immeasurably. Moreover, results were achieved! Experiments that have achieved results are ipso facto notable. Votes to delete are narrow-minded and POV. -EDM 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google gives only 29 hits, I can't verify any of this information and it's not sourced. ESkog 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable, no useful details. ManoaChild 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Purificare and conservare(?); there is plenty of information for even a stub, and it seems to have worked. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
What information? I can't find any mention of this that hasn't come from that article (at least in English). Claims like that need some pretty outstanding proof. Do you have any references?--Apyule 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Proto t c 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Experiments with Edit Page achieved results with VfD, still not noteable. Delete. Lomn 13:34:01, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that a successful time-travel experiment, which isn't too secretive to be on Wikipedia, doesn't have more than 16 google hits, with many unapplicable, and hasn't been covered by any major new agency. Something smells very wrong, and when things smell very wrong you delete as unverifiable. --Scimitar parley 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment actually there is a bigger problem with Kosmopoisk and Vadim Chernobrov articles, there are 5330 google hits for Kosmopisk and one of Chernobrov hits is [5]. I guess they are next in queue for nomination, but 5400 hits may hit the notability for pseudoscience or at least notable self-promotion threshold. –Gnomz007(?) 14:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Delete. Not even an article. -R. fiend 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that huh. Someone achieves time travel and it is ignored by the news media? Smells like a hoax to me. And I don't think I'm narrow-minded for saying Delete. If true, this would be the biggest news in the field of physics EVER. I don't believe in time travel, but hey, I'd love to be proved wrong. --Etacar11 16:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Guess why there's no coverage in the news media and very few Google hits? A simple hop into the Lovondatron, quick trip to February 2014, and wipe 'em out! Results achieved, I tell ya. -EDM 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Plus, who knew you could time-travel in a yurt? -EDM 17:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to elucidate and record the hoax / conspiracy theory. Eldereft 23:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can fulfill this suggestion for the rest of Kosmoposk articles. This device may be as arguable as E-Meter which has an article, but scientologists are much more popular, it would be bothersome to repeat hoax theory on so many articles. But its true that the most fraud accusations againt Chernobrov mention Lovondatr. I've been pointed to Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan with similar problems, but I see that the "Quodoushka sex therapy" has got no article of its own–Gnomz007(?) 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 21:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense.  Grue  05:29, 18 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --malathion talk 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Efront

Dicdef. DS 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete dicdef Soltak 02:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Soltak --Apyule 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delēre(?) as per Soltak. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy.This "article" is a good example of some shortcomings in our speedy delete policy, in my humble opinion. There are two sentences on the page: "efront - virtual real estate frontage. Beach front, street front, efront." I do not know what the person who created this page is trying to say; it is most plausibly an ad, although google does not seem to show any company with the name selling real estate in the first hundred or so items. He may also have been attempting to define words. Or it may be spam. Regardless, it is not clearly comprehensible, and it most certainly should not be on Wikipedia. It is not unreasonable to allow sysops to delete this on sight, IMHO; we waste quite a bit of time voting on stuff like this. Is there a CSD that applies? I'm not certain, although I think a strong case can be made for G1 (see item 2 in WP:PN). I will apply the speedy tag(-patent nonsense), in the knowledge that a closer can always disagree and remove it, if in their opinion this should go through a vote. Respectfully—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:26:02, 2005-08-11 (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 22:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taquito

Really just a vanity page. Not terribly notable, and certainly not encyclopaedic (plans to go on to study veterinary medicine... cute). Delete. Exploding Boy 02:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a cute little dog, but not very notable Soltak 02:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Cute, but hard to see it going anywhere useful. --Apyule 03:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: mascot of a university sports team should probably make this doggy notable enough according to the rather low notability bar for such things on Wikipedia. There is, for instance, articles on the Berkeley mascot Oski, and even on The Oski Yell. See also Category:College mascots and List of U.S. college mascots. (I'm abstaining, by the way.) Uppland 05:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) No, actually I vote to delete this. Even compared to some other mascot articles this one is pretty crufty, although the dog is cute. Uppland 05:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Taquito and Oski are not really comparable. Oski is a mascot for a whole (very major) university, Taquito is a mascot for a single team at a (not nearly as major) university. Also, Oski is a "character" played by numerous real bears and later by people in suits, while Taquito is just one individual dog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, yeah, when looking through the other mascot articles, I realized that most of them are for the whole university rather than a single team. That's why I changed my vote. I still think the yell article is crufty in the extreme. Uppland 13:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conservare(?) based on similar articles. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable. ManoaChild 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stupid and nn. Proto t c 11:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete cute does not equal encyclopedic notability Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete if it was about the food taquitos i'd say keep. Nateji77 12:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to taco until we get an article on the food taquito. Meelar (talk) 15:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete and recreate as a redirect as above. Robert A West 15:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then recreate as redirect. ral315 16:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus and then delete and recreate as redirect. --Howcheng 20:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete adorable, but this is nn doggie vanity. --Etacar11 22:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy so we don't lose this cute page. Then we can get a page put there about the food. Almafeta 11:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Favorite catchphrase? Plans to go to medical school? This needs to go before Wikipedia turns into a doggie version of "Hot or Not?" I can't believe this is even coming to a vote. Mark 17:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote by 71.111.227.251 (talk • contribs))


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

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 Move to Jiangjun. Jiangjun article created on August 11 by anon IP, and is basically a copy and paste of this articles text, so I am replacing the teft from this article into Jiangjun. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chiangchun

i recommend the article to be deleted for the following reasons:

1. "Chiangchun" is a dialect term (Hokkien?) not recognized internationally. i did a google search with "chiangchun" and all results returned were "Chiangchun Harbor", "Chiangchun River" and the likes. This means that the term "chiangchun" is not widely accepted or used at all.

2. The Chinese idea of a general is no different from that in the West. Until perhaps the invention of firearms, leading men of armies around the world often engage in duels to determine the outcome of the conflicts. And whether in China or elsewhere, they do follow a set of honor codes.

Therefore, i believe this article is redundant and should be deleted. --Plastictv 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename to "Jiangjun" to make the transliteration Hanyu Pinyin as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). You'll probably get better Google results that way, too. It's not a different dialect, just a different way of writing the same word in the Latin alphabet. --Jemiller226 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah it looks like a variation of wade-giles, so we should put its content under the pinyin entry. Colinoncayuga 03:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Jemiller226 --Apyule 03:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Movēre(?) to better title. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename, as suggested by Jemiller226. --rdnk 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename, and keep the redirect, of course.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, darnit. Wikipedia:Verifiability anyone? Perhaps Wikipedia is not a dictionary? "Jiangjun" tranlsates simply to "general" if you look it up in a Chinese-English dictionary. A Google search for the terms in the article show nothing and I've never heard anything about a clerly defined Chinese martial class or anything similar to knights. Could someone actually confirm these claims before taking them for granted? / Peter Isotalo 00:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless its verifibility and uniqueness from other types of generals is actually shown. It's basically a word that means "general" (the Japanese word Shogun is a cognate that also uses the same characters). --Yuje 11:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion

But the article has no content at all, and is not likely to have any. Renaming to "Jiangjun" doesn't help in that sense. --Plastictv 03:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Though I was the first person to defend the article in the original discussion, it was simply based on a hunch I had when I saw that the Google hits were extremely low on "changchun" that it wasn't hanyu pinyin. I was, as I soon found out, correct, so I suggested the move. I only knew this because I had a single semester of putonghua in college (so I'm not an expert on the language, either). I cannot, however, claim any real amount of knowledge of Chinese history or her military. I'm guessing that most people who contribute to Wiki and read the VfD page don't, either, and so I don't want it on my head if an article disappears simply because I don't know a thing about it. I leave that for the Chinese historians to debate and either improve the article as it stands now or make it a disambig (since apparently it has several meanings). --Jemiller226 05:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of renaming the article. Unlike how other cultures interpretation about generals, the term were use by chinese in the past more like a collective term for any commanding personal in the military than simpily generals. The term should be seperated to let us identify there is a significant difference between how different cultures defined the role of the generals. --User:wuzika12 011:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article now is factually incorrect, as there has never been a military class in China - except in periods of foreign rule, in which case the upper-ranking marshalls - but not the officers - are restricted to that race. -Hmib 01:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you guys see where this is leading to? The article might as well be a subsection of "Military history of China". It shouldn't exist as a separate article because "chiangchun" or "jiangjun" are not recognized at all. Let me give you an example of an earlier edit someone made to the article Guan Yu: Guan Yu was a chiangchun (general) under the... Don't you think that it sounds awkward, too? Furthermore, it'd be ridiculous if every Chinese term should have its own article, just because the Chinese perhaps view the subject a little differently from the rest of the world. --Plastictv 13:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Jiangjun in Chinese chess is equivalent to "checkmate", something that article forgot to mention. So at least Jiangjun deserves to stay. As for chiangchun, I think it needs to go. :D -Hmib 03:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Mate, that's the same as saying the Chinese chess equivalent of the King in the International Chess is "jiangjun". Should we then start a "Ju" article, which is the equivalent of the Castle, or a "Ma" article, the counterpart of the Knight, and so forth? Anyway, when used as a verb, "jiangjun" could mean either "check" or "checkmate". It could be mentioned in one breath in the Chinese chess article. --Plastictv 07:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
With 3 different meanings that may not be all that apparent to the non-Chinese mind, I don't see why it shouldn't stay, though. -Hmib 16:21, 15 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 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-negotiation

Kind of the definition of regular negotiation if you ask me. Jemiller226 02:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • E-Delete, superfluous. Sdedeo 02:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to negotiation. --Apyule 03:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. ESkog 04:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Dirigere(?) to negotiation. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect Cynical 09:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with negotiation.--Fenice 11:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. What does "dirigere" mean, please? Is it a valid vote? Proto t c 11:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See the little question mark link after it. It's Latin for redirect. Don't ask me why though. Never mind. the wub "?/!" 16:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears to be the infinitive form of "redirect". I suspect the Merovingian has recently started taking Latin. It seems to me he should be using the imperitive, however. Oh, and delete (same in Latin, I think, for "destroy") or redirect. I don't care which. -R. fiend 16:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with negotiation. --rdnk 15:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, awwww... I wanted to say "E-Delete" :( the wub "?/!" 15:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just delete no redirect no merge no latin words, let's not make up words. feydey 21:28, 11 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.
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 22:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purity Distilling Company

NN other than what's mentioned, and that's already in the Boston Molasses Flood article. If not a delete, at least a redirect is in order, IMO. Jemiller226 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete : I know little about Boston Molasses Flood, the page contains hardly any information. A redirect could do. Manik Raina 05:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is way too short, but the topic is noteworthy enough for an article. I think that it's better to fix it than delete it. --Apyule 05:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conservare(?) as per Apyule. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per nominator. Proto t c 11:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Apyule. ral315 16:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, can be expanded. feydey 21:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Boston molasses disaster (that's the target of the redirect at Boston Molasses Flood). If we ever acquire significantly more information about this particular company then it can be broken back out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Apyule. Eldereft 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep company is notable enough to be worth at least a stub, and that's what we have here. If someone searches on "purity distilling company" at least they'll learn the organization's primary notoriety. Collabi 08:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per TenOfAllTrades. BrainyBroad 11:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per TenOfAllTrades. Pilatus 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Apyule. Aecis 15:54, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QuickPlayer

Delete. Non-notable software. Article has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since July 10. "quickplayer fmod" yields 44 unique Google hits. android79 03:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete --Apyule 05:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conservare(?); is linked to and is more than an advert. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely unnotable. Nandesuka 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only linked by 4 articles, two of which are VfD related, and the other two have been spunged into a list of media players. What does conservare mean? Proto t c 11:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --rdnk 15:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable Niz 22:07, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kokology

Delete. Non-notable pop-psych phenomenon/book. kokology yields 588 unique Google hits. Amazon sales rank of 119,160. android79 03:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Purificare and conservare(?); Wikipedia abounds in articles about strange philosophies. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn pop-psych. ManoaChild 08:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per ManoaChild. I seem to be saying that a lot today. Nandesuka 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ManoaChild. ESkog 15:54, 11 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 Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbage-duck

Delete. Barse-man is at it again. -- BD2412 talk 03:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. --Apyule 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delēre(?) as nonsense. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. What does delēre mean? Proto t c 11:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delēre is Latin for delete apparently. This article is certainly worthy of it. Capitalistroadster 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense/hoax. --Etacar11 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Secretlondon 15:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a load of barse! Should be delete, it definately is not "the number one swear word in Britain". --βjweþþ (talk) 16:23, 13 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mauger Le Vavasour

Hideously formatted cut-and-paste of automated GEDCOM output (copyvio?), containing tens of individuals. The titular individual is non-notable, and the only notable persons among his descendants already have entries (the 2nd Earl of Salisbury, some Earls of Arundel). Choess 04:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, or Move to Wikitree. --rdnk 15:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Rdnk. --DrTorstenHenning 20:04, 11 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 wasDelete. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grouperscan

  • DeleteThis is either vanity or non-notable, zero google hits, it just seems like some project the author was involved in. I could be wrong though MicahMN | Talk 04:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It sounds like it was cool, but it appears to be totally unverifiable, and thus unsuitable for an article. --Apyule 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Apyule. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:56, August 11, 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 --Allen3 talk 00:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Opinion Does Not Matter

nn web log. --malathion talk 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, with the temptation resisted to cute off with something like "This Vanity Article Does Not Matter"... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly fine article, does nothing bad. Breaks no rules and is completely neutral, it would be different if they said "GO HERE!" they do not, it just provides info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dillon Says This (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 04:55:06 UTC.
  • Delete : Still contains nothing encyclopediac, despite the argument above. Manik Raina 04:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If my opinion doesn't matter, then I suppose you won't mind if I say Delete. The blog is nnvanity all the way. Karmafist 05:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - No rules are broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:41:28 UTC.
    • (this user's second vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
  • Delete. Non notable, but whether its NN or not is not an issue, its vanity, on the top of the website [6], it says "I made a wikepedia page for us". →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing wrong, it is not vanity, someone point out how it is vanity to me and I will be suprised. So what if the page creator made a page? He has every right to, its a publicly made site, anyone can make pages on here. And the page fits fine with the guides to making a page. - Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:35:54 UTC.
    • (this user's third vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
    • Are you by any chance the Thomas from the webpage? And I must have been hallucinating when I read "I made a wikepedia page for us" on the top of your webpage (I see it is no longer there), whatever the case, I will not point out anything from the webpage as evidence, as I see it is a futile battle. With or without proof of vanity, proof of notability and alleged cult following is still missing, though some of those pictures were funny. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 06:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - has no value as a valid reference guide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.11.81 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:37:21 UTC.
  • Keep - Nothing against the rules on said page. Dillon Says This 5:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC) (actually 4.253.113.164 2005-08-11 05:40:14 UTC according to edit history, and this user's fourth vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
    • See Special:Contributions/Dillon Says This: as of now, this vote and 2 acts of vandalism. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 06:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dillon and Thomas, this page clearly breaks WP:VAIN, which is part of Wikipedia's official policy. Karmafist 05:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Explain to me how this page is a vanity page? They do not say that the page is amazing/great/the best ever, they just give information about the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:56:58 UTC.
        • Did you read the WP:VAIN page? Vanity doesn't mean that you are self-aggrandizing yourself in the article, it just means that a person, or a person's friends, or a person's admirers (or a website or company, for that matter) which is not significant enough to have an article is written about the non-notable person, site, company to try to increase their publicity. Zoe 06:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable blog not rating in top 250 in the Truth Laid Bear traffic rating see [7]. Capitalistroadster 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an obvious delete, for the following reasons. 1.The page was created by the authors of the blog. Creating articles about one's self or one's works is frowned upon on Wikipedia because it (a) makes it likely that the NPOV will not be adhered to (as is apparent in this case), and (b) makes it more likely that the precepts of verifiability will be ignored (as is also apparent in this case). See also WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, and WP:NOT. 2. The subject of the article is not "notable." For an article to have a rightful place in Wikipedia, it must be of sufficient significance and importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia. There are more than 15 million blogs in existence [8], the vast majority of which do not meet most reasonable people's idea of notability. "Notability" can sometimes be difficult to determine, but there are usually less problems when the verifiability and no original research policies are understood and applied; they weren't in this case. To the new users who created the article page on their blog: welcome to Wikipedia. This can be an interesting place where you might learn many things. If you're interested in editing or writing articles, do sign up and learn more about the project, and begin contributing. Please understand that our votes for deleting your article are not meant as a personal affront to you in any way. We simply feel that they have not been in accordance with some of the policies of this project, which are necessary to keep it functioning.Kind regards.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 07:07:12, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn blog. vanity. ManoaChild 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ManoaChild. Nandesuka 11:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, doesn't even have a domain name yet, and the sockpuppets don't help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Now, please, go get a life! --Marcus22 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incidentally, Dillon (i.e. User:Dillon Says This) is the name of one of the contributors, per the link in the article, so assume that's one of the site's creators. ral315 16:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unremarkable blog --Tim Pope 17:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete An attempt just to get people to visit the website. Seems that the creators just made it. NRS11 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn blog vanity. --Etacar11 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Your Opinion Does Not Matter. :D Actually, delete - as per above. -Hmib 01:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- It's not even written well. Hujjat 09:10, 15 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 redirect to synonym Big Bang nucleosynthesis. ~~ N (t/c) 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Primordial nucleosynthesis

Primordial nucleosynthesis is just an infrequently used synonym of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which we have a very comprehensive article on. This article is two sentences and just says what can be inferred from the name. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Manik Raina 04:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (maybe Redirect) per Uber nemo. ManoaChild 08:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're in the wrong place. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, third door on the left. We redirect such synonymous titles. Uncle G 09:00:55, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Hi uber. Is "primordial nucleosynthesis" a recognized synonym of "big bang nucleosynthesis," or is it widely used by some people to mean the same thing? If so, this page should redirect. If it is a nonsensical title, then it should be deleted. I believe the former is more likely. Thanks.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:15:26, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
It could be considered a legit name so I did a redirect just to be on the safe side (probably what I should have done in the first place but I wasn't aware you needed the article). No merge though because there is nothing worth keeping. Unless there are some objections I guess its done. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:39, August 11, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battlestar Kramden

Local cover band in Billings, Montana. Fails WP:MUSIC —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 05:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • YAWN, yet another non-notable local pop music band. There are infinity pop music bands. Delete. Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. YANNBV (yet another non-notable band vanity) --Howcheng 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no offense to them but being a cover band almost guarantees non-notability. --Etacar11 23:00, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grannies Burritos

It's actually "Granny's Burritos"- but aside from that it's non notable, sort of like me writing an article for the convenience store in my home town. CanadianCaesar 05:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A local, not notable restaurant. Kushboy 06:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though verifiable and NPOV, this article is not notable and not meaningfully expandable. ESkog 15:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn restaurant. --Etacar11 23:02, 11 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 Not deleted; no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic Actresses and Actors

No more notable than List of Catholic Criminals, which is already up for VfD. The religion of an actor is not important unless they make it so, such as Mel Gibson. Zoe 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is just a rehash of the debate just finished. We had a VfD for the comprehensive list of Catholics: Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics. The article was kept, but many wanted to break it up into smaller articles. This article was a section of List of Roman Catholics, and was recently split off into a separate article, as were many other sections. If it gets deleted it will just be returned as a section of the original article. We might as well keep the smaller lists, but in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter, the information will end up somewhere. We are just going over the same tired old ground here. NoSeptember 06:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I'm beginning to feel exhausted: haven't we been thru with the same stuff already ? Mir Harven 16:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I don't understand--I thought this was settled with the division and reorganization of the site. Why are we debating deletion again?? User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
  • Delete. This is not just some small nationality or a minority somewhere, but the majority religion of the Americas and large parts of Europe, as well as a prominent minority in many other countries in the world. Unless you want to probe into every individual's faith, this would include almost every actor and actress from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, (Republic of) Ireland, large parts of Germany etc. Unmaintainable and ridiculous. Uppland 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh Lord, something of this scope is completely unmaintainable and pretty much pointless. If there was some sort of correlation between acting and Catholicism I could support this list. --NormanEinstein 15:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Slightly more NPOV than List of Catholic Criminals, but still a list that is non-encyclopedic and would take forever to compile all actors and actresses who are Catholic (that list is big, but by no means is it complete, I'm sure.) ral315 16:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to completion, it would be impossible, there are alot of Catholics, and alot of actors and actresses. In countries like France and Italy, almost everyone is Catholic, so in theory over 90 percent of their actors and actresses should be on this list, 25 percent of American actors and actresses, and many from the many other largely Catholic places in the world. It might be different if Catholisism was a small unpopular religion; it isn't. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 16:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete being Catholic is not unusual enough to warrant a list. --Tim Pope 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — How does this differ from the following: List of Jewish actors and actresses, List of Indian movie actresses, List of Quebec actors and actresses, List of female theater actresses, List of female movie actors, List of Catholic American Actors, List of actors who have played lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, &c. &c. &c. ? — RJH 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We may need to set some guidelines on the validity of lists of people existing on Wikipedia, because it appears that some just don't like them, period. In addition to all the actor-related lists you listed, there are dozens of Catholic lists, Jewish lists, Muslim lists, and on and on. Should we VfD each in turn? It seems to be the trend. NoSeptember 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have wanted to say, “delete” for the past few days, but I have changed my mind. I wanted to see the value of such a list. What value could it have?
    • VALUE: Let's say you are an 11-year-old school child and wanted to write a paper for class of prominent Catholic entertainers, or are a reporter for the Bumpkintown News and wanted to write an article about prominent Jewish physicists. You might want to include a list, and/or work off of one to create your assignment.
    • MORE VALUE: I would like to see the list have even more value by placing more information into the list. Instead of just a list of names, it would be move valuable if it contained useful information. I would like to see notes added in parentheses after a name entry: “(practicing)”; “(born into Catholic family)”; “(served as alter boy)”; “(converted at age 69)”; “(non-practicing)”; etc.
  • As for the list becoming long: that is for the people who contribute to it regularly to worry about. They can start filtering by prominence later, as they see fit. You don’t need every Sean, Carlos, and Mario on the list, if the list gets to big, you can make it prominent actors.

WikiDon 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete we can have infinite lists of 'people who are in category X, who are also in category Y' (e.g. 'List of blue-eyes sportsmen). Unless the two categories are likely to impinge on each other (e.g. 'Catholic philosophers', 'Afro-American politicians') or we are dealing with a minority cross-sections, which have otherwise become notable in debates (e.g. 'List of American actors who were professing communists'), I would always say delete --Doc (?) 17:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete To Doc's point, I think we can legitimately establish that a list identifying some remarkable condition (i.e. being from Quebec) warrants a presence, if only to satisfy the lust of listmongers. In this case, however, Catholic seems too universal a category to be of much interest or value. Also, on a different note, isn't 'actor' now gender neutral? Dottore So 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, actors, criminals etc are not maintainable and not very relevant. List of archbishops may be. Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It's kinda bizarre one has to resort to quoting himself, but, as Ned Kelly had said: "Such is life.". So:
  • 1.Having read the "delete answers", I've come to a unanimous (hehheh..) conclusion: the list must be kept. Arguments for deletion go something like this: yeah, and List of Muslims, List of Jews, List of Buddhists, .., too.. It won't happen. These list will not be deleted. So- either all or not a single one. Since the former option is out of question- the RCC list must stay (albet radically modified in not a few features). Since I was the one who has been, initially, the most suspicious about the RCC list, I can ask with some authority: why is this list here at all ? Not accompanied by other fellow lists ? Now, the whole affair begins to smack of something...undesirable. Mir Harven 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what we have categories for. Proto t c 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A useful list with a lot of editers who keep it up to date. Doohickey 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per my arguments in Votes for deletion/List of Catholic Criminals. Ken talk|contribs 17:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's useful. --Chris 18:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, go ahead and delete it, because it's only notably list-worthy when criminals, actors, and what-have-you are not of the One True Faith </sarcasm—or is it?>. → (AllanBz ✎) 03:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why would anyone want to read this...? Unmanagable, pointless and potentially endless. Hopefully the other similar lists will get deleted sooner or later... / Peter Isotalo 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it could be organized better and if it get unamanageable then ther can always be subpages... like in philosopher lists. gren グレン 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. it was said that Catholics are a majority in the West, nevertheless it's wise to keep the list in order not to get confused, for there are always exceptions. User:Cockney
  • Comment - List could be relevant if it would include actors and actresses whose career is closely linked to their catholicism, that is, who have played prominent roles in movies or plays with strongly catholic themes or who are outspoken catholics. Those who just happen to be catholics would not qualify. - Skysmith 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. (AGAIN-AS I ALREADY VOTED, BUT WANT TO ADD SOMETHING)-Skysmith--do you mean fanatics like Mel Gibson; trampy hypocrites like Loretta Young and Grace Kelly; IRA supporters like Morrissey, Mickey Rourke, Eddie Dowling; nuns like Dolores Hart (and formerly June Haver); Peter Boyle, a former Irish Christian Brother; horrible/sadistic/reactionary folks like Bing Crosby, Arthur Godfrey, Pat O'Brien; converts like Jane Wyman, the Barrymores (child converts), Sir Alec Guinness; et al--the list is fascinating and should be kept. Why is Zoe allowed to reopen a previously closed subject, particularly AFTER some of us have spent a lot of time, energy and money to update (the list was already in existence before I ever edited, added or deleted anything) this list. Yes, in theory, it could go on forever, but nobody is going to put down unknown, minor or cameo actors from predominantly Catholic foreign countries, and if someone were stupid enough to do that, those entries could be culled from the list by any editor or member of the Wikipedia community paying attention, as someone always is, as I have learned. 67.100.55.13 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • First, I think this comment is at least bit out of line. Second, most of those people are not famous for their religion but for their other endeavors. Based on this comment, you plan to fill the list with inappropriate POV commentary about them and that would constitute vandalism. Third, WP has large number of articles about "foreign" people (IP comes from California so I presume that you refer to non-Americans) - Skysmith 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think on a page like this POV is not only OK, but essential to the decision of whether or not to keep the list, on which I have spent a lot of time and money and thus have an investment. I don't think I was out of line, but I apologize to anyone who was offended. I used the above examples as examples of how interesting the list can be with surprises and personal details and yes, exposing the hypocrisies and false images of people in the public eye who may not be what they pretend to be, and the Catholic church is a great place to start--it lends itself more to that aspect than say, Methodism or Presbyterianism--given its history of censorship and condemnation. And I don't plan to include POV about them, as it would most likely be removed anyway and would get me blocked, but I think given the subject matter some POV is inevitable, as opposed to other areas (science, technology, mathematics, geography, astronomy, etc.) where POV is wholly unnecessary and should be punished.

By the way, what is "IP", and why do you think I am in California--I am in New York!! Rms125a@hotmail.com 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Again- the discussion on the validity of this list is completely out of touch with reality. We got actors who are Lutherans, born-again Christians,..(they're incorporated in denominations' lists, for instance: List_of_Lutherans, List_of_born-again_Christian_laypeople,List_of_Latter-day_Saints#Actors, List_of_Buddhists#Celebrity_Buddhists,...). This is a list of people who are nominally Catholics (as is the case with Lutherans or Mormons/LDS people). As I see it, we got here double standards. Catholics should not be discriminated against in such harmless fun stuff as lists just because they are majority, numerically strong minority or what not. Mir Harven 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This looks like intended surreptious advocacy, which is against the WP policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine). And the IP address above refers to Covad Communications, California, so the message at least came through their routers. (Note: I am not catholic, by the way. Any references to catholic practices belong to appropriate articles, like the criticism section of the Roman Catholic Church.) - Skysmith 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Skysmith - Who is committing the "intended surreptitious advocacy, and what does it mean?? Am I the screw up again?? Or are you referring to Mir Haven?? Why is it OK to have lists of Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christian laypeople, et al and NOT Catholics?? I think Mir Haven destroyed his own talking points with illogic. WikiDon and NoSeptember, who seem to be the "leaders of the pack" (if you will) have it right. And again, why was Zoe pemitted to reopen this debate which was fairly settled and finalized--isn't that kind of sabotage and willful disregard for the norms of the debate and a respectful acceptance of the will of the majority (why usually goes AGAINST me, by the way) a violation of Wikipedia Netiquette?? If Zoe is an editor then she should be penalized for causing this kind of dissension and turmoil. By the way, Skysmith, why would I care what religion you are?? I am Jewish if you want to know. I look forward to everyone's responses, once again, in this infernal, endless, pointless waste of time, debate, which as far as I am concerned was already settled once. Are Zoe and her allies just looking to keep counting the ballots again and again (shades of Florida 2000) until the count goes her way?? Signing off, Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

    • To put it simply, POV is not okay. Your comments referred to strong opinions of some famous people and unfortunately number or others have tried to insert their POV into various articles in the past. Also, I am not referring to my sect here since I am not catholic. Also note that I have mostly commented, having no vote but I think that someone's religion is relevant only if they are famous for it (in this case, Mel Gibson would fit the bill). As for your choice of rhetoric, calm down. - Skysmith 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm personaly not too bothered which way this debate goes - but, please assume good faith and stop trolling --Doc (?) 18:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

POV is unavoidable, we are humans not machines. Again, what is "intended surreptitious advocacy" (you spelled "surreptitious" wrong, by the way, Skysmith)?? What is "trolling"?? Why was Zoe allowed to reopen this debate and threaten all the time, money, work, effort that I have spent on this project, which for whatever reason, it doesn't matter why, is interesting and is something I look forward to. I also contibute to the Jewish show business figures page, but admittedly, not as much. NoSeptember promised that the lists would remain, albeit configured differently. Regrettably I cannot "assume good faith", Doc glasgow. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP--there is some useful and interesting info. here. I am a Catholic (from Poland) and I am not offended. Czesć, dzien kuje!! Karas peter@yahoo.com 18:11, 18 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Came a mighty banjo

Band vanity, zero Google...but I'll be damned if this isn't beautifully written and formatted. To the anon who wrote this: Sign up! We need you! - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Allmusic doesn't have 'em. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even their website leads to nowhere. Vanity. Kushboy 06:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:VAIN—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:10:04, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:06, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glock Group

Utterly non-notable, as a Google search reveals. Most likely vanity/advertising, considering the handy link to their website. Also note, founded "6th July, 2005". Delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V,WP:VAIN—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:08:01, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --Howcheng 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --Ovrad 13:57:29 August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. Optichan 16:58, August 17, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fast Die Fun

Band vanity --malathion talk 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. and may i say DARN YOU AND YOUR AUTOVFD SCRIPT BEATING ME TO THIS PAGE!=) Sasquatch讲看 06:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dude...you are fast.  :) This had been speedied earlier today. Just so long as it goes bye-bye. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment: The anon removed the VfD notice. He's taking a three-hour time out.  :) I love this job. - Lucky 6.9 06:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's no worse than most of the articles here. In fact it's better written than most (which doesn't say much for the general standard.) 212.101.64.4 09:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:05:49, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Sorry. --Marcus22 14:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if it already deleted once. And how can the VFD edit be the first one? --Howcheng 20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Band vanity -- Cnwb 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -- tis well written though! hope the author keeps contributing Erich 15:40, 20 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi Council Forums

I know I'm going to be unpopular with the trekies. Now, I conceed that Star wars is very notable (OK), and a page on the history of Starwars might be notable (OK?), and a page on a starwars fan-website might (just) be motale, and a message board from that website might be worth a passing mention in that article (possibly?), but a dedicated page with a detailed history of a message board of a website of a movie - is cruft. It is of possible interest ONLY to those involved, thus not encyclopaedic. --Doc (?) 07:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Wrong. This is not fancruft. Fancruft would be of interest to fans in general. This is not. But the conclusion is the same: Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I admit I am a bit biased, having been involved to some extent in the writing of this history, but I notice wikipedia has a section for internet message boards. The JC is both the world's premiere Star Wars board and one of the world's largest bulletin boards, period. (See big-boards.com if you want proof. I believe we're still in the top 10.) If any message board deserves to be in wikipedia, we deserve it. I also notice some of our fellow big boards, including Gaia boards and IGN, have articles here. Dark Lady Mara
  • You're definitely going to be unpopular with the Trekkies for conflating Star Trek and Star Wars, Doc. ☺ Uncle G 09:23:16, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Hello, my vote is delete, for contravention of WP:N, WP:V. I made an earlier comment that said the above less accomodatingly; I'm sorry. TO DLM, we'd welcome scholarly contributions from you and your colleagues; many of us feel the page under discussion is a violation of important policies on Wikipedia. Please understand this is in no way intended to be an affront to you, and we'd be glad to have good articles from you. -Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:59:50, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • I especially like the bit about the highly(sic!) intelligent members of the board, and delete, btw Lectonar 10:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but trim with chainsaw, seems notable for sheer size (the forums not the article!) and larger than many in Category:Internet_forums. Did anyone notice the bit at the bottom?
    • August 8th - Le Sammler has way too much free time and creates a boring history page about the JC on Wikipedia. It is just a joke!!!
    • August 8th - FlareStorm trolls Wikipedia

-- the wub "?/!" 10:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fancruft. Nandesuka 11:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete do we need something like this. Where does it stop? How about Channel 4 forums, Battlefield 1942 forums, Warcraft forums, dating forums etc --SpaceMonkey 11:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not see why an article on this message board's history should be kept under any circumstances. It is simply unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to record the daily goings on of message boards-it takes an extraordinary interpretation of what an encyclopedia is to permit that. It fails Jimbo's verifiability test: if something was truly notable (and of such notability to be considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia) it would be the subject of independent study and/or reporting. Are there serious works on this message board (or any message board, really)? Has it been reported in the press for something significant? Are there sociologists or other scholars who study the board? Are there reputable secondary sources that one can use to write about the board? I mean, come on. This is an encyclopedia, and that's an internet message board. One's not going to be in the other. There is only one type of article that I can see having a rightful place in Wikipedia on the subject of message boards, and that is an article looking at message boards and how they are shaping or contributing to public discourse or forms of communication in developed economies. Not this.-Encephalon | ζ | Σ 11:32:43, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Excerpts from aticle: "July 8 - Obi Anne and Rox are promoted to GSA's in Fan Force." and "April 17 - In a collaboration between the staff at TFN and the Fan Fiction authors and enthusiasts on the forums, the TFN Fan Fiction Archive Opens. While not the first mention of forceboat, Bib's "force boat parte!!!" was nonetheless the place where Forceboat came into its own." ...and there are hundreds of lines just like those and worse. Absolutely no reason to believe that anybody outside the forum itself would care about any of it. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for forums to record their members' comings and goings. Delete, the Force is weak in this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, cruft. Martg76 13:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn cruft.Gateman1997 14:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every website needs an encyclopedia entry. --NormanEinstein 15:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Quietmind I ask that those who are wanting the page to be deleted be aware that the current "article" on the page was not the right way to go for it. In addition to it being a problem in itself (it was lifted from another JC member's site, possibly without permission), as it was never meant to be used like this, it also lends itself to the sort of joke entries that have already been made. Unfortunately, the problems you see and are using as reasons for deletion stem partly from the very popularity that makes the JC as big of a board as it is. If I had my way, I would prefer to approach the JC and its history from a completely sociological and scientific lens. I'm interested in the sociology and psychology of internet message boards, and the JC has been truly remarkable in both areas. Instead of what has been used so far, I ask that you simply delete the "timeline" part of the article (which is what's so long, and causing other problems) and allow others to build the page back up in ways that will be of interest to anyone who wanders by, not just JC members or Star Wars fans. Unfortunately, a few people have taken a completely wrong (if well meaning) approach, and the result is an understandable desire to delete the page. As could be expected, a number of people have (or wanted to) added their relatively pointless entries ("Flarestorm trolls wikipedia", etc.). I ask that you not let this deter people who are actually interested in writing something that's up to wikipedia standards. The JC is a message board with a rich history, one that can be used to speak to both web life and real life. That is why I argue for it to be kept, and why I request that those who want it to be deleted reconsider their positions. Were you in our shoes, I think you would feel likewise. If you were able to see what a few of our members could do, I think you would agree that it would be a fine addition to Wikipedia.
    • You don't have to ask us to delete the timeline. This is a wiki, and you are a Wikipedia editor. Be bold! If you can improve the article to address the concerns of the editors who are in favour of its deletion, then you are encouraged to please do so right away. Uncle G 19:30:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how anyone outside of the forum itself (or even inside for that matter) can care on what date Larry Fett or Darth Friedman was promoted to moderator. This belongs on their website, not this one. -R. fiend 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not true. That's part of what I tried to say above. The problem lies not in the page itself, but in the approach taken in it. The timeline should be cut entirely. Just remove that and let a few capable people write something that other people *would* care about. You are basing your judgment on something that should not be there in the first place. Please observe the DeviantArt wikipedia page. That has been allowed to remain, and rightly so.
      • In writing about things that "other people would care about", I strongly recommend citing sources, such as (for example) news media coverage. Cited sources will lead you to things that people have cared about. Please be aware of our no original research policy and the fact that an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. Uncle G 19:30:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
        • Again, I ask how many of the other websites or forums that have wikipedia entries have been the subject of extensive media coverage? How many have merited independent academic study outside of wikipedia or other methods of online chronicalling? I can't recall seeing many books on IGN or DeviantArt at my library. Let's at least be consistent here. Dark Lady Mara
  • Delete, just another fan forum and thus not a notable webpage. All the timeline removal in the universe will not alter that fact. Lord Bob 17:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you think it's "just another fan forum" and therefore not significant, I recommend you delete your entire section about internet forums for consistency's sake. Why are those other boards more "notable" than this one? Also, I do know as a fact that the JC has spawned ideas which influenced fandom and pop culture. Do you remember the cover of Mad magazine once featuring a fake Sith lord with an upside-down yellow lightsaber? That was a joke first invented on the JC which later spread around the fandom! Dark Lady Mara
      • 1) Being ripped off by MAD Magazine (and no, I don't remember the cover in question because I haven't read MAD Magazine since it started sucking, which was a while ago indeed) does not notability make. 2) I wouldn't terribly mind seeing some of the other forums we have here go either, but I don't care enough to go out and hunt them down and especially not to just satisfy a bunch of fanboys that their little slice of the Internet is somehow special. Lord Bob 06:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Just another fan forum?" It's the biggest fan forum in the universe!-LtNOWIS 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Lock, no, wait, Delete Forums are not notable, and neither are the ins and outs of who got promoted to moderator when and how. I could write a similar long and enthralling (to forum users) history of the Sluggy Freelance forums, and I'd still consider it un-encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 01:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Theforce.net following MSchlaf's edit. Extraordinary Machine 16:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, according to [9], this is the 11th biggest forum on the internet. It's got more than 19.5 million posts! If we get rid of this, we would also need to get rid of many other internet forums. See Category:Internet forums.-LtNOWIS 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as suggested by EM unless the sociological content Encephalon suggests can be added to give it useful content. That is, the article should describe what makes this forum unique - not what kinds of discussions occur in which part of the forum. The contents can be determined by simply opening the forum, which makes our article not terribly useful. --Habap 19:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, after heavy edit. That is a HUGE freaking message board, and again, compare with Something Awful. Definitely worthy of inclusion in the larger TheForce.net article, without all the boring crap about injokes and moderators and such. Hooper_X
  • Delete. Let's encourage this kind of cruft. / Peter Isotalo 01:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - One of the many, no importance outside its subject matter - Skysmith 10:29, 15 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jmmaar

This has got to be a fan creation. If it were canon I would expect a ton of google hits searching for "Jmmaar Vvaw". It turns out one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 11 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 Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cha Neel

Another load of Barse from the same author, Dockcharlotte (talk • contribs), as Ribbage-duck. Sample excerpt: "In 1936 he won the Brit Award for doing something no one dared to do: kicking Gandhi in the rear." I haven't located any rewrite candidates. Uncle G 08:37:19, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hoax. I think "Died of toenail cancer" was more amusing though. Well spotted, such things often slip through the New Page Patrol unfortunately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Very likely hoax. As far as nails are concerned, toe (and finger) nails (correctly, nail plates) are keratinized tissue, and the eponychium, pernychium, hyponychium, lunula and the germinal matrix of the nail root are all composed of cells that have never been known to have potential for malignant transformation. (Ie. there's no such thing as toenail cancer).—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:36:05, 2005-08-11 (UTC)Oh, and it's delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:36:49, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete first he kicked Gandhi in the rear, now its FDR. Nonsense. --Etacar11 23:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article claims he won the 1923 Nobel Prize for Literature when the real winner was William Butler Yeats, the Irish poet. Rest of the article is nonsense too. Capitalistroadster 23:35, 11 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Keywords

This page was originally nominated for deletion on August 3. That debate is archived here. Now, after seven days, no further votes have been cast. Since this is a large page, with plenty of text on its talkpage, I am not going to say that one person's vote constitutes a "consensus". I assume that Beland's nomination still counts as a delete vote. The reason given for deletion by the original nominator was:

This page is...confused. It does not appear to be an active WikiProject, nor a useful proposal for starting one. Beland 22:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not voting here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This smells like it was written by an engineer. Clean up if possible and keep.
  • Keep. I'll admit it, I can't figure out exactly what this project is for. However, it's still relatively new and absent a note from Quinobi I see no reason to delete. -- Visviva 06:44, 17 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Util

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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inokashira Society

No Google hits other than pages on Wikipedia. No Google hits with Japanese name. Unverifiable, possibly hoax. Kusunose 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • comment there doesn't appear to be an article on ja.wikipedia.org about it either. --Tim Pope 17:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I can find no scholarly references to this. It would appear to be a hoax. Dottore So 20:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Smells like a hoax; lots of details with no references, and the "home page" for a society supposedly founded in 1881 is a Geocities page with a Yahoo mail contact. Nice picture of Inokashira Pond on that "home page", though. --Calton | Talk 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete so secret we can't verify it = nn. Or hoax. --Etacar11 23:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone cites reliable sources. Fg2 03:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panicker

Vanity page, bad title, asserts notability, but there are zero Google hits for "Satheesh Sreedharan". -- The Anome 09:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. Grayum 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete candidate (A7). I have tagged the page.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:40:01, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Comments only, no Vote: I think that the present contents of the article do not qualify for a page in wikipedia and the contents of the article is not encyclopedic; otherwise “Panicker”, also spelt in slightly different styles, is a notable surname / family name of several persons of Kerala, India - just by way of an example: [10]which claims that “Panicker” is a surname bestowed upon the family by the Kings for exemplary services to the nation. It is equal to knighthood in England." I neither agree nor disagree with this assertion, as I have not fully studied the matter. --Bhadani 14:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Maybe you should wait till its been deleted, then write a new article under that name? Sounds interesting, if true. Grayum 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's no worse than most of the crap in wikipedia. 212.101.64.4 14:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear, I would suggest as and when we encounter “crap” in wikipedia, as users we should collectively help to identify and assist in removing the crap. I am sure that you agree with my views. --Bhadani 15:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, delete. You can reach me at 555-2355. feydey 22:33, 11 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Button Yer Ed Translations

Previous consensus was to merge Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes by season. This is just cruft on a single episode, and would make a pointless redirect. May also be original research. the wub "?/!" 10:07, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Unpopulars

Not legendary anywhere else. 195.92.168.166 10:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, changed this... Follow the thread. It is all relevant Wierd Studio Bunch 2005-08-11 10:26:01 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 12:03:52, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
  • Delete as per Wierd Studio Bunch. -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --rdnk 16:15, 11 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wierd_Studio_Bunch

Vanity 195.92.168.166 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Nandesuka 11:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Will be notable when merged with other content relating to contributors to the group. Can see point about possible vanity/non-notable, only I need more time to adjust content to make more valid - Should be of interets to comic fans?? ThanksUser:Wierd Studio Bunch 12:12 11 August 2005
  • Delete Vanity, not notable. No Google hits (none under "Weird Studio Bunch" either) make it unverifiable, possible hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no google hits for "Wierd Studio Bunch", or even for "Weird Studio Bunch" (with Weird spelled correctly). Note I have redirected a couple of substubs to this page as well which will also need deleting. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity or hoax. Don't forget those substub articles pointing to that article, I made them into redirects already as they had no actual contents beyond "see Wierd Studio Bunch". andy 11:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment OK.. go ahead and delete this.. Will create better content and then re-submit. Sorry, this honestly isn't a hoax. I'm a newbie and probably should formulate my content better before submission. I was planning to add entries for Glyn Dillon and Alan Martin in a similar vein to Jamie Hewlett of Gorillaz fame, as they all worked together under the Wierd (sic) Studio Bunch moniker (also Big Underwear Comix) in the late 80's. Again, thought this may have been of interest to Tankl Girl and comic fans... Thanks for your comments. User:Wierd Studio Bunch 13:11 August 11.
    • Thanks for your understanding. Please note, though, that Wikipedia does not accept unverifiable material. This means that, since this subject doesn't show up on Google at all, you'll have to provide references of some kind (newspaper, book, or periodical mentions, for example) for the article to be kept, no matter how detailed, extensive, or well-written it is. Remember, above all, that deletion isn't anything personal against you or the article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, August 11, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fudge Said No

It's another weblog, no particular notability; once you've said that it's a weblog and given the link, there's nothing more to be said. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of prominent visionaries

POV anyone? I just can't wait until someone adds L. Ron Hubbard, Lyndon LaRouche and even David Icke to the list. David | Talk 10:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • And Jimbo Wales (he said sycophantically) - otherwise delete --Doc (?) 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with a vengence. This topic is hopelessly POV and will probably start a few POV wars. (How can you include/not include Einstein, Ghandi, Muhammed, etc.) ManoaChild 11:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Arthur C Clarke? Why did he live in Sri lanka?--Porturology 12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a prominent vision to Delete. --Several Times 14:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Manoa Child.--Frag 14:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Though I must agree that Jimbo Wales deserves a spot on the list. ral315 16:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete the criteria for listing is too subjective. --Tim Pope 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 17:29:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete, but at least it let me find Finn McCleave and Jason Po-Tiger. Anything that helps clean crap out of Wikipedia has served some purpose.--Scimitar parley 17:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless I'm added to the list. I like how there weren't any "prominent visionaries" for ten centuries. JDoorjam 20:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, only slightly better than having List of people suffering of diarrhea. Pavel Vozenilek 02:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Visionary" is severely not objectively quantifiable, so much so that we probably couldn't even get a good list out of "People who are widely considered visionaries" or the like. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't forget Marc Emery... / Peter Isotalo 01:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Edit war bait and POV galore, all supporters of just about any kind of group, no matter how small, would try to include their founders - Skysmith 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is the sort of thing that should be a category if anything at all, unmaintainable as an article.--Gorgonzilla 18:01, 18 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender gap

Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets is just one of the BJAODN-worthy "highlights" this page has to offer. The ingenial authors of this piece have made a list of stereotypes about men and women, and have not even shied away from grouping the resulting ugly list into 'gender gaps favoring men' and 'gender gaps favoring women'. (Needless to say, we all know Wikipedia - the "gaps favoring women"-list is of course twice as long as that of gaps favoring men.) This page is unmaintainable on Wikipedia.--Fenice 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • From the article: "the female sections of clothing catalogues are often more comprehensive than the male sections" Excuse me whilst I cry over the inherent unfairness of it all. Ok, I'm done. Somehow I suspect that a real article could be written on this though. I'd say redirect to Gender studies for the time being, and maybe it will split off from that with a real article someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. It feels like there's some point that the article's trying to make (which is bad enough in itself) by grouping all these statistics. Few of the stats even make mention of sources. The topic itself may be important, but there's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere. --Several Times 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Huh? The first and last sentences seem self-contradictory. -- Smjg 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it's a bunch of statistics grouped together to make some kind of point. More than deletable. --Several Times 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Gender Studies, or given the content of the article, perhaps a Disambig would be better (Gender Studies, Sexism). Pockets and mail-order catalogues aside, this is a laundry list of what seems to be undocumented and unexplained (not unexplainable) differences in the US. Example: Women live longer (mostly) (no sources) and Men pay more for insurance (not connected in article) Could we possibly have a less intelligent article, excepting only vanity pages? We already have an article on Sexism.--KillerChihuahua 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Common believes mixed with original research. --rdnk 16:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Firstly, how is "Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets" either J or N? Do you just happen to live somewhere where this is just not true? Both my observations and a few online writings e.g. [11] show it. And you called a VfD just because of these additions? Would you have called one when they were only mentioned on the talk page, if you'd noticed at that time? -- Smjg 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, and yes, it is N. (Women, for instance, "have testosterone" too.) JDoorjam 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is definitely potential for an article here focusing on the term relating to the gap in support between genders for political parties in various countries. It is certainly a verifiable term. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a joke or child essay. Pavel Vozenilek 02:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is lousy, but that is not a critera for deletion. The article is POV, but that is not a critria for deletion. The topic itself is encyclopedic. This article is mostly original research but sources are easy to find [12], [13] remove the lists. Rewrite the intro. Mark as a stub and keep Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • rewrite or if possible revert to an older edit that isn't as stupid--172.165.218.226 15:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to vote to keep and cleanup because this is a valid topic, but this article is nothing but a list of absurd factoids. It's much better to start anew. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:29, 20 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. Graham 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Wice

Nice try, but not notable, yet. Graham 11:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. "He is a leading researcher* in the field of social theory ... *Alex is not a leading researcher in the sense that he has an established affiliation with a university, or has done ground-breaking work in academia with respect to social theory." Says it all. Collabi 11:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Born in 1988" indeed. David | Talk 11:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit he's pretty well-spoken though. Maybe he will be a notable researcher one day. 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Believe me 17 year olds are not leading researchers. You actually need to do the hard yards and publish a body of work over several years. What are his publications?--Porturology 12:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY DELETE

fourth edit:

I just finished talking to him and he told me to get it off the net ASAP, and that he didn't want to be known for his affiliation to socTH. Please delete this.

I am the author of the article; I don't think this should be deleted, for a couple of reasons.

(1) I am not Alex Wice, which already says alot.

(2) People in the community want to know who he is.

(3) He is easily one of the top 5 people that has contributed to the field, and IMO in the top 2.

(4) People may be unaware that he has written x,y,z articles (the articles that he has written, not literally "x" article, duh) or cannot match his psuedonym to his real life name.

(5) He has very strong, 'professional' (as in, related by work) to notable people, such as "Mystery" (Erik von Markovik), and "TylerDurden" (Owen Cook). To give you a sense of how they are notable, "Mystery" claims that he is the best pickup artist in the world, and backs up this claim with open challenges as well as thousands of testimonials that validate that he is infact the best seduction teacher on the planet. That means that this person is #1 at something, by affiliation the person that is close with someone who is #1 is also notable (not in whole because of their closeness, but in part.)

In response to "Collabi"'s vote for deletion : if you read the page, I provide a note which explains how internet-research is just as notable as "real" research (research affiliated with a university.) The reason is that there are alot of nonstandard ideas that are logically valid but are discarded in a 'professional' setting, and also that people that work in this field really need to have a different set of beliefs (an 'open mind' ?) that lets them explore.

In response to "Dbiv"'s vote for deletion : if you look at the entry "Macky" in wikipedia, you will see that this is a biography of someone born in 1990, who is notable. The age doesn't matter.

edit: I forgot to sign. Here is my signature. 70.24.247.156 12:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

second edit:

From Wikipedia:Importance;

  1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are 
     or were concurrently interested in the subject.

you only have to use google for 'pickup' or goto bristollair.com to see how many people are interested in pickup articles; then it is quite easy to find his handle (psuedonym), which by then you will figure out that many people have read his articles, which is evidenced by the hit counter at the bottom of the page in just one of the many places that hold copies of his writing.

so stop saying "nn" : easily more than 1000 people has read some form of his work and many are interested to find more about his work, and possibly in the future where they can find his work / more of his work.

another thing is that his presence in the dictionary may provoke him to come out of hiding and start writing for the general public again.

ps. for the record this is still the same vote even though my signature appears above this.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Attempting to convince someone to come out of hiding is not something an encyclopedia should do – we report verifiable facts here, we don't engage in soapboxing. (Well, at least we try not to.) android79 13:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)



  • Delete. nn. Nice try, though. ManoaChild 11:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, teenage vanity, unverifiable. If he truly is a prodigy, he'll produce some peer-reviewed research in the future, at which time an article can be written about him. As it stands now, this is completely unencyclopedic. android79 13:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Have to agree with above, at 17 he's no leading researcher. --Marcus22 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as per the author of this page, see above. Also, on second thoughts, this page meets the criteria set out at deletion of vanity articles. Graham 04:19, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rogé Abergel

A pastor. 17 Google hits. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — fails to establish notability. — RJH 17:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nominator. --Tim Pope 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. feydey 22:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 23:26, 11 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender of Japan

As User:Raul654 suggested. I would love to know what others think. (Please don't take this sarcastically)

  • Keep. Naturally I created this article. -- Taku 11:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Victory over Japan Day; i know that's americentric, and i know japan's only surrended once, but it still makes more sense to me to move any non-duplicate content over there. Nateji77 12:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Change vote to keep, article has been greatly expanded. Nateji77 07:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Nateji77. Wouldn't want any redundancy. --Several Times 13:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The most difficult VfD I've seen so far; I have respect for what Taku is saying here. The rules first: WP cannot have two articles on the same subject under different titles, that's not an option. So a decision has to be made in either choosing one of the current titles, or choosing a third that is agreeable to all concerned. The last option will intuitively sound the fairest; it is also never going to happen. So choose one, we must. Now, an article on this subject need not be intrinsically POV. It can document in the most rigorous terms the different POVs, and this one (the V-J article) does (it goes to great lengths to tell us what the day is called in Japan, etc). If everything in the article is meticulously NPOV, then all that remains a point of contention is the title itself. But we can view the title as merely a marker: a marker for interested readers to find a story on the subject. What ought to be important to us is making sure that our story is fair: the title is merely a link to get to the story. Therefore, choose the title most people are familiar with. On the English Wikipedia, that title is V-J day. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 14:16:30, 2005-08-11 (UTC) NB. I should clarify that I mean that the article should be deleted. The page with the title "Surrender of Japan" can redirect to V-J day.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 14:59:12, 2005-08-11 (UTC) The page has been rewritten to address the concerns of editors. The rewrite met my objections, and I have changed my vote (see below).—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:56:11, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Keep and do one of the following. (1) If we don't have a well-considered article on the surrender debates in the Japanese government, then this would be a good name for it -- PBS recently did a good job on the subject, so we should be able to do at least a stub. A disambuguation paragraph can then point to V-J day for anyone who is looking for that topic under this title. (2) If such an article exists, then this article can become an extended disambiguation page, pointing to V-J day, the surrender debate article, and the relevant sections of the articles on the atomic bombing. (3) If all of these exist, then this can be a redirect. There doesn't seem to be much to merge that is not already at V-J Day, but this can be looked into by whomever does the fix-up. Robert A West 14:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

keepGateman1997 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, what is the rationale for deletion? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
    • Interesting that you say that, Chris. There are 9 votes on this page. 3 votes are for keeping the page, (apparently) as it stands. None of the three who voted this way said a word to explain why they think as they do (this is not necessarily a bad thing). 6 others have voted for a change - all 6 believe that the page should not remain as it does. Most think that the page should become a redirect after it's contents are either merged or deleted outright; Robert suggests other things that may be done with the article space. In each case these editors explained why they think what they think. Perhaps reading their comments may answer your question as to their rationale, and explaining your own view would help us understand why you think the page should be kept (apparently as is).—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 17:20:10, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
      • A number of people seem to have a rationale for merging; I disagree with this merge because V-J Day and the surrender of Japan are two separate things. e.g., descriptions of the annual celebration of the event belong on V-J Day, and descriptions of the surrender process (which of course covered more than one day) on the Surrender page. If the pages were to be merged, this seems to be transparently the better title, as it makes sense everywhere and addresses the entire topic. It remains unclear why this is on votes for deletion and not being discussed as a merge. The nominator provided no basis for deletion, and Raul's comment directs us to the talk page, which this article appears not to have. Again, what's the problem -- unencyclopedic, POV, etc. -- that's prompting the deletion of this article? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or delete. As I said on the talk page, there is no rational basis for having this article. Taku created it because he's currently in an edit war with just about everyone on Operation Downfall. His logic is surreal - Taku claims that because the Japanse Wikipeida doesn't talk about the reasons why Japan surrendered, neither should we. So he took information out of that article and moved it to this one. →Raul654 16:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Just for a record, this is not what I am saying. -- Taku 23:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect per Nateji77. Victory over Japan Day covers the topic in greater detail, and this is nearly redundant. — RJH 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP and expand. VJ day article is about the day Japan surrenders. The article "Surrender of Japan" should cover the actual process of surrender, hold-outs, after surrender battles (such as the last battle at sea, being a few days after the surrender, between a US Marines captain and a Japanese Army colonel on Chinese junks), the signing of the surrender between Japan and the various combatants, the fact that Japan and the Soviet Union never made peace, etc... 132.205.3.20 19:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Nateji77 is right.Dottore So 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand, per Robert A West. An article about the Japanese perspective towards surrender would be a good addition. It's something I might have been able to write back in college, but that was far too long ago. --Howcheng 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


CHRIS: The editors who vote on the VfD page are charged with a simple task: to determine whether the article in question satisfies criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. The question before us is unambiguous: does the article now lying at Surrender of Japan deserve deletion? The first thing to do is to look at that article. It has four sentences. It states that the Emperor announced Japan's surrender to the Allied forces on Aug 14 1945, that that day is known as Victory day in the US but Shusen-kinenbi in Japan, and that it is generally considered to mark the end of WWII. That's it. There's nothing else there.

Now, the reason this article is before us is clear. There is another article, VJ day, which relates precisely the same events, and which has been around for two years. There is a WP policy that you cannot have two articles on the same thing. Since the content of SOJ was so similar to the corresponding, relevant portion of VJD the question essentially boiled down to: which title page should this article come under? I explained in my first post how I answered that question. My opinion is that the article at SOJ should be removed. Other editors have said that the content of SOJ should be removed and "merged" into VJD — that is fine too, the reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I read both articles, and it seems to me there is essentially nothing in SOJ that is not already in VJD.

Now, you and the anon have suggested that the article be kept, and that a future article detailing the whole surrender process can go to that page. I find nothing objectionable in the least about writing an article under that title that would narrate all those issues that you point out — sounds to me like a splendid idea. But that is not our charge. We are asked to decide what to do with the article sitting very publicly on that page right now. (There is a reason why articles that are VfDed are "frozen" - that is the version we are judging, not something in the past or the future.)

Would I object if the SOJ page was blanked and a new version such as what you speak of was put up? No, of course not. I'd want to see a good article like that up sometime. However, I cannot be asked to respond affirmatively to, "Well, why don't you keep this article that violates policy, because in five months we'll have a different article here." This is similar to "In five months I'll be bigger than the Stones, dude, so keep the currently non-notable article on my garage band." —Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:55:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    • The fact is, however, that V-J Day and Surrender of Japan are about as much the "same topic" as Easter and the Resurrection of Jesus. As well, you are welcome to merge V-J Day into the broader topic, Surrender of Japan, and if you want move that whole thing into Pacific War. I wouldn't oppose these merges so long as no information was lost. However, merging broader topics to more specific ones is a mistake. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:16, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
      • Chris, this is really taking up quite a bit of time, isn't it? I'm afraid I can't explain my position any better than I already have. While I am unable to understand why it is that you respond as if you haven't read what I wrote (and this has happened twice), and am moderately amused that you're telling me stuff about SOJ that I already know and have agreed with, I'm perfectly happy to leave this as it is. This is a VfD, and outcomes are best when editors who understand policy evaluate each matter disinterestedly. We've all said our piece: great. May the closer decide what's best. I'd urge anyone voting here to 1. Read both the SOJ and VJD articles, 2. Read the posts here 3. If they haven't lately, read WP:DEL, and 4. Vote! All best wishes—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 06:19:58, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The article and Victory over Japan Day are about different topics. One is about a day; the other is about an ongoing process. The article can take into account lots of events that led to the surrender of Japan, such as the outcome of the Battle of Okinawa; the Potsdam Declaration; Russian preparations for invasion of Manchuria; continued bombing of Japan; internal conditions such as evacuation, mobilization, food supply; internal political discord ... there is enormous potential for gathering in one place the factors that led to Japan's surrender. None of this belongs in Victory over Japan Day. This situation has important differences from the analogy to a band (as Encephalon asserted): the article does not violate policy; the event is already proven noteworthy and encyclopedic; the possibility of growth is in the article rather than the subject. Fg2 00:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
What do we keep besides the article namespace?
"On August 14, 1945, at gozenkaigi (meeting by the Emperor and the leaders), the acceptance of Potsdam Declaration was decided."
and
"The day is known as Victory over Japan Day in the U.S."
make it pretty unambiguous that the article we have now is referring to the day, if not the hour, japan agreed to accept surrender. we can keep and list it as a page needing expansion, but the natural direction to expand in is likely to just result in more content redundant with what's at V-J Day. if expansion is desirable, then i think we need more variegated content than we have now, or at least a very clear request for such on its talk page. Nateji77 04:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
make it pretty unambiguous that the article we have now is referring to the day, if not the hour, japan agreed to accept surrender. Exactly. I am unable to understand why the concept that VfDs evaluate the existing article at the page namespace and nothing else appears to be difficult to grasp.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
It's easy to grasp. Is that concept policy? Fg2 07:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Final Comment. From reading some of the above, it doesn't look like it has been grasped. I think the basic facts here can be summarized as follows:
There have been 13 votes. Of these, 2 votes are for simply "keeping" the article (ie. keeping the article as is). The other 11 voters want some sort of change to the status quo. The disagreement appears to be with what form the change should be. 6 voters want the content of the article at the SOJ page removed and merged into the VJ article, should there be anything to merge. The other 5 voters want the article to be kept as is for now; they say that in future it could make a great page for a number of hypothesized possibilities.
I have explained why I disagree with that view. The SOJ article is not a marvelous treatise on the series of events surrounding the end of the War. It is a 4 sentence paragraph repeating, almost verbatim, stuff from the 2 year old VJ page. Wiki policy on this is clear - merge (if there is anything to merge), and redirect the page. Since this is a wiki, there is no harm done to any party with this action: if an industrious editor writes an outstanding article on SOJ in the future, he can always put it up, and he'll have my full support, for sure. But do understand that I will not change my vote to allow a clear policy violation to get through because of a hypothesized future alternative. My best wishes to you Fg2.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 12:21:37, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Comment (since, I recently discovered, I still have too few edits to be acceptable to the Cabal to be accounted a responsible voter) :: IMHO 'V-J Day' is an extremely POV title, and panders to the triumphalist Brit-o-centric mentality which I thought was supposed to be being eradicated. On the other hand, an article on why one country decided to end a war by surrender, rather than continue to a futile defeat, seems an eminently valuable piece of original exegesis. --Simon Cursitor 11:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While the page is currently mininmal, there is a great room for expansion. There is no mention of the surrender aboard the USS Missouri to MacArthur, who signed it, who was there, where is the surrender sword now, etc. There is no need to merge with VJ day either. While the two pages currently look similar, VJ day deals with the celebrations around much of the globe. Barneygumble 20:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There is plenty of room for expansion, and this is a perfectly different concept from VJ Day. The comparison of Easter vs the Resurrection of Jesus is a particularly compelling one. Themindset 21:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it in a direction that clearly distinguishes it from the V-J Day article. Fg2 11:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent work, Fg2. I believe most editors vote out of a concern for policy, and desire to see WP filled with as many good, strong articles and as few poorly written, sorry excuses. Our differences arise mainly with what to do in the interval; whether we're willing to tolerate a poor article/policy violation remaining on WP in hopes it will eventually improve, or not. Editors who vote to "include" have valid reasons for choosing as they do; I think the most valuable among them are those who actually put their keyboards where their mouths are and work to improve the page. As it now stands, the SOJ article is a decent precis of some of the main events surrounding the Surrender, is clearly distinct from VJday (ie. it is not a redundant page), and has good scope for expansion. Editors on VfD judge what is on the page — with Fg2's excellent rewrite, I see no reason for this page to be "kept-but-merged/blanked/made-to-redirect," and remove my earlier vote for such. I now vote simply to keep (and hope the involved editors can find a way to settle their differences and expand). To Fg2, keep up the good work.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:50:10, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. V-Day is about a specific day. Surrender of Japan covers a longer time period, it should have details on which events led up to the surrender, which I think is much more encyclopedic and interesting content than the fact that this day is actually still called victory-day in the US (enough criticism on this mentality was already posted here), and that it is still celebrated. If one of the two article seems redundant, by all means keep "surrender" and delete V-Day. --Fenice 12:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC) A no-merge vote is a good choice now. Prior to 30 minutes before you wrote this, it wasn't.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
  • Comment Incidentally, it perhaps bears mention that there was no reason for any editor who wanted this page to be kept to fear deletion — no one here (with the possible exception of one editor) voted for the page to be deleted. People were voting to merge-redirect, keep-expand, keep-as is —all of which imply keep. (The closer of this VfD has the simplest of tasks ahead of him/her.) The debate we're having here is essentially one that could (should?) have taken place on the Talk page of the article, because all the actions involved may be performed by any one of us. VfDs like this one are symptomatic: it's actually being used as a dispute-resolution process. I am not sure why the person who brought this VfD did so, since when I checked the history, it looks like the person who brought it himself does not believe the page should be deleted. I do not know his motivations, I do hope it was not WP:POINT, but I'm happy that the issue looks like it's moving towards resolution. Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:56:11, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd been working on an article, and have posted it.
    —wwoods 20:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC) LOL. Excellent. By the time this VfD is over, SOJ is going to be a featured article.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 20:24:00, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I agree that the circumstances surrounding the surrender of Japan in World War II should be better explored; a good aspect would be the attempted coup by members of the Japanese military prior to Emperor Hirohito's broadcast (I think I'm gonna work on that as well :)). The article on V-J Day is just a commemoration of the actual day of surrender. This promises to be a good "killer" article, although a better, more precise title may be in order.RashBold 21:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has obviously been substantially expanded since the start of this voting process. It looks to me now to be a robust piece of work worthy of keeping in it's own right, particularly given the current topicality re the Hiroshima / Nagasaski bombings and the renewal of historical debate regarding the reasons for the Japanese surrender - i.e atomic bombings / role of USSR etc. The comaprison to the VJ Day article, and calls to merge with that seem, to me, to be patently wrong. -- Cactus.man | Reply 11:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons delineated above. Bhumiya/Talk 12:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The process of the surrender of the Japanese Imperial Army has nothing to do with V-J Day, it just happened on V-J Day. The process of surrender had begun some time before. --Luckybeargod 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Kross 21:10, August 15, 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 (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phivos Sebastiane

Incoherent. 5 Google hits including Wikipedia

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. He seems important to a certain past era of electronic music. The limited Ghits are probably due to psuedonym usage, but all that information is going to be very difficult to verify. POV removal and overall clarification would be a good start towards determining exactly who this guy is. --Several Times 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. And the sun has just come out! Hurray!!! --Marcus22 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Also, delete the related information from the Pure Science disambiguation page, and stub the page for the remaining definition. JDoorjam 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. AMG has nothing to say about him and his one album got only 2/5 stars (the review calls him "relatively obscure"). --Howcheng 20:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename He's actually quite well known under the alias Pure Science, at least as far as any DJ may be considered 'well-known' that is. Ie. well known enough to have articles on him in all of the British dance music press a few years back - Google hits don't mean much in these cases, as none of those magazines are reproduced online. However, based on the amount of material here on a relatively-minor DJ and producer, albeit one with some very rabid fans within his genre, I'd say there is a strong chance this article represents a copyvio. illWill 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if illWill is correct. Secretlondon 05:52, 18 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B5062 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I think this is a good-faith attempt to document the geography of the area; why would anyone be a fan of a minor road? It does seem non-notable, but I have to admit that page might be kind of useful if I heard about the road on the radio or something. Collabi 11:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - B5062 fans are idiots! B2021 forever! (Article doesn't establish notability) -- Plutor 14:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First of all, Plutor is a TROLL. B2021 is not an important road and is indistinguishable from B5062; basically, these are all the same, with the obvious exception of B31415, which is teh R0XX0R. Plutor, please take your POV somewhere else. Also, please, God, stop these road articles! Sdedeo 14:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, county road or state hwy equivalent from the UK. Gateman1997 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Gateman, how do you reconcile your assertion that a 19 mile stretch of asphalt is notable with your statement that high schools have to demonstrate notability [14]? Not trolling -- I just don't get it. This article makes no assertion of notability. Sdedeo 14:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Numbered Highways are extentions of national and regional systems that are vital for travel, commerce, defense, and life in general. Grade and Pre schools are not (note I modified your comment as I don't advocate deleting highschools if you had read my page.)Gateman1997 14:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Do not edit other people's comments. It is incredibly rude. Sdedeo 05:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Then please do not misrepresent other people's comments as I've never said highschools have to show notability. See my page for proof of this.Gateman1997 17:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Get rid of this and all other B roads. It's just a map in words. Keep A roads, and Keep Motorways, not B roads. - Hahnchen 14:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't think of a single notable B road. (except maybe the one below of course) the wub "?/!" 15:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a WikiAtlas? Would be appropriate there.Allegrorondo 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia should be a wikiatlas. Kappa 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kappa should start a separate wikiatlas. Besdies, atlases use maps, not vague descriptions of maps. -R. fiend 16:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete B roads < A roads < M motorways. Too minor--Tim Pope 17:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article contains no useful or interesting information as is; and " a 19 mile stretch of asphalt" as Sdedeo put it is hardly an encyclopedic topic. Nihiltres 23:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete B Roads are not notable. For the love of your particular deity of choice, what is remotely encyclopedic about them? Sabine's Sunbird 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor road. List of Tennessee state highways shows a better way to handle these imo. Gazpacho 01:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor road no one, including Kappa, will ever actually look up. Please, god, make the B road articles stop. Nandesuka 02:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: please see - and join in at - Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an atlas or travel guide. Kappa needs to read WP:NOT. Proto t c 09:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with a suitable article about UK B roads. Can't think of a good reason to delete this. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:46, 20 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B855 road

Fancruft. B-roads are countryside lanes, not national roads Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The B855 is the most northerly road on mainland Britain. Laurel Bush 11:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC).
    • That's right, the only fact that makes the road notable is that it leads to Dunnet Head, the northernmost point of mainland Britain. The fact is replicated in the Dunnet Head entry, and I can't see how the B855 road entry can be expanded beyond that. Pilatus 14:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Laurel Bush. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, county or state level road in the U.S. Also per Laurel Bush.Gateman1997 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a US road. Conventions in Britain are different. A-roads would be equivalent to county roads. Do check Great Britain road numbering scheme. Pilatus 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree. C and D roads might be nothing but local streets but per your own link B roads are at least the equivalent of county routes in the U.S.Gateman1997 15:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • No, county roads would be three-digit and four-digit A-roads. Trust me on that, I used to live in NY state and now live in Scotland. Pilatus 15:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dunnet Head where it is mentioned. Generally B-roads are not notable. the wub "?/!" 14:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Please get rid of the B road uselessness, an atlas in words is not good. Being the northernmost road in Britain does have some sense of notability, but just redirect to Dunnet Head. And Pilatus is right about the UK road classification. - Hahnchen 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, roads are verifiable, important and interesting, as well as being useful for navigation. Kappa 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If we have to cover these roads, we can do it in a list or in the relevant town articles. Town articles should mention connector roads. Gazpacho
  • Delete or redirect to Dunnet Head. The article doesn't even state that it is the northernmost road, which is odd, if that is its single claim of notability. -R. fiend 16:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete B roads of little significance. --Tim Pope 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level. --SPUI (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road. Gazpacho 01:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, b-roads are not now and never will be notable, barring some hypothetical b-road that might become famous sometime in the future because human sacrifice is performed on it. Nandesuka 02:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: please see - and join in at - Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom
  • Delete for resoning given on every other B road. Sabine's Sunbird 03:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For god's sake, don't let B-roads be the new schools. Stick any relatively useful info in the Dunnet Head article and kill it good. Proto t c 22:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons at Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom The JPS 16:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. B-Roads are the new schools. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:38, 20 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Say Hey

An article on a message board on a Kylie Minogue website - that's probably reason to delete. The current longer version is a (probably defametory) record of trolling on that website. Attempts to redirect to Kylie have been reverted. --Doc (?) 11:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete and then protect... a good example of why we can't include too many forum articles: they quickly turn into heaping piles of shit. In any case, a section of a singer's website is not encyclopedically notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, recreate as redirect to Willie Mays, and protect. android79 12:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sayhey is a pop culture phenomenon inmvolving thousands of people, and it has made mainstream influences. The entry must stay but needs to be protected from vandalism.(unsigned comment by User:203.164.52.84)
  • Could some admin consider protecting this until the VfD is concluded - there's been a revert war going on --Doc (?) 12:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kylie cruft. / Peter Isotalo 13:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. Unencyclopedic, WP:N, WP:V. An article whose subject is an internet message forum.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:50:18, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Everything that you keep deleting has been entirely factual, non-defamatory... and interesting from a pop culture point of view. Please stop vandalising this entry. This is fascism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.52.84 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 13:04:09 UTC.
  • I've temporarily protected the article, and blocked the several three-revert rule violators and the one persistent vandal who had already been warned. Please note during this discussion that there is a dispute over the contents of this article. You may wish to also refer to the other version whilst discussing the article's deletion. Uncle G 13:58:35, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete For the above reasons and for the behavioural problems. --Marcus22 14:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An encyclopaedia article on a Kylie forum. They should be so lucky, lucky, lucky. Capitalistroadster 16:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or redirect (and protect) to Willie Mays. -R. fiend 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, recreate as redirect to Willie Mays, and protect as per Android79. ral315 16:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a shameless and pathetic attempt by the webmaster of the site to gain fame and more credence and notoriety on the internet when most people with common sense will avoid it like the plague. — (Unsigned comment by JoJo05; user's 1st edit.)
  • Delete and if it comes back, delete and scorch. For all the reasons above.
Unsigned vote by JDoorjam ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this steaming pile of turd. It's another attempt from some very disturbed individuals to voice their slanderous and bitchy opinions on others that they don't know in a bid to make themselves feel a little bit more important. Some of the members on the Say Hey forum are incredibly immature and have way too much time on their hands. So, yeah....Delete this waste of space until someone can write something at least worthy of being read by mature adults....NONE of which frequent that bloody forum!! Unsigned vote by 172.203.75.19 - whom I take it is voting delete
  • Delete Yes, I think you can safely say I feel it should be DELETED!!\ (Unsigned vote by 172.203.75.19 (talk • contribs))
  • Delete This needs to be deleted, I am the "HollabackPat" mentioned, I don't like this sort of trashy thing, why can't we be adults. (Unsigned vote by 4.233.127.226 (talk • contribs))
  • Keep Sayhey is culturally significant to the same level that other websites like Slashdot and Popbitch (which have their own Wikipedia entries) are. Probably the bits which defame individuals should be removed. But anything which reflects the sites internal culture, and nature of debate is worthy of detailing in Wikipedia. Cheers. (Unsigned vote by 203.110.145.70 (talk • contribs))
  • Delete nn message board. --Etacar11 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Redirect to Willie Mays is unnecessary. I just created a redirect from Say Hey Kid and that should be plenty. Dystopos 21:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forumcruft. Martg76 19:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until a better and less self-congratulatory version can come along. Deletion, however, should not be based on all of the above (and obvious) biases. Notability is self-evident, and suggesting that the grounds on which this is nn would probably mean that EVERY forum entry is useless, including slashdot and such. HOWEVER, to prevent further holier-than-thou delete requests, I suggest a merger with the actual Kylie_Minogue article itself, with a mention of the basics (large active member base, recent legal threats over posting midweeks and unreleased artist material, etc.). --Alex¯Jon 16:19, 16 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National_Underwear_Day

Not notable 12:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • hmm... is that a press release? Delete. Nateji77 12:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's really an advertizing gimmick.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:42:40, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost funny, except for the blatant advertising part. ral315 16:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is taken verbatim from their website. Way too corporate and not proven to exist outside of freshpair.com.--Elwoodthegreat 19:47, 14 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fr._Adsum_Iterum

Non-notable Grayum 12:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I will tag for sources and improvement. Its a badly-written bio, and may well be autobio, but the Book of the Glyph is available for sale on Amazon.com, and that seems to qualify under WP:BIO. Robert A West 15:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • From WP:BIO: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000. Has the book sold 5000 copies? The book has an amazon ranking of 1,033,998. Its publisher, Xlibris Corporation (http://www2.xlibris.com/) is a vanity press. Delete. Zoe 21:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn author from a vanity press. --Etacar11 23:43, 11 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blatte

Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable, could be expanded. We have articles such as Gringo or Kraut. Martg76 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But gringo and kraut are commonly understood English words these days. Googling gives no hits with this usage (in English, at least) in the first 50 or so listings. Delete. BrainyBroad 11:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • As a native speaker of Swedish and being a fluent English speaker since the age of 10, I can confirm this. It is an exclusively Swedish term. / Peter Isotalo 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see why English terms should take precedence over others (if those are encyclopedic/notable). Even though written in English language, this is an encyclopedia with global appeal. Martg76 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It's an English language encyclopedia. It might have global appeal, but it's still written in English and including slang notable only in languages other than English is going, far past any reasonble interpretation of our inclusion policies. It's one thing to include persons, ideas, events and places not notable or even completely unknown in English-speaking countries, but slang terms... That's just taking it too far. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide? / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • That argument is inconsistent. If that is your opinion, why don't you put Kraut or Gringo for deltion, or Johann Gottfried Piefke, who is really only notable because of the slang term? Wikipedia isn't an English slang dictionary either, is it? Martg76 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
            • It's realistic, if anything. I'm seriously unamused by the though of keeping every imaginable slang in term notable only in every imaginable language besides English. I think it lowers the general credibility and standards of Wikipedia and encourages additions of other articles on idioms known only to non-English speakers which are difficult to verify and is very hard to put some decent limit on. A lot of slang in most languages is extremely notable and there's always information to add about which of social or ethnic groups that use it, etymology, differing pronunciation, etc. etc. It's very easy to claim that nearly any common slang term should be included. Kraut and gringo, just like nigger, are veritable institutions of the English language, and keeping such extremely notable English-language terms (even if I would prefer not to have them) feels like a very reasonable compromise to me; extending this reasoning to other languages does not. And Pfieke is a poor example in this context since he is a person who has done other things besides become famous for being associated with an idiom and... well... he's a person, not a slang term. / Peter Isotalo 10:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peter Isotalo. / Alarm 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm sorry for disagreeing... exclusively Swedish term? yes. -- but being non-notable is (i think) not a reason by itself for deletion... m:wikipedia is not paper, and all that... --Fred-Chess 12:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • If a non-English dictionary slang term is not a reason for deletion, then what is? / Peter Isotalo 15:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Having thought about this a bit, I have decided to vote weak keep, as this and "blatte" both are slang terms used frequently in modern Swedish society, and can probably be linked from articles on Swedish youth culture and immigration issues. "Blatte" already has a link from the article on the Swedish hip hop group The Latin Kings. I'm not adverse to revisiting the issue if the articles haven't shown signs of growth in six or twelve months. I have asked User:Tsaddik Dervish, who writes articles on Swedish hip hop, to look at the articles. Uppland 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Article growth isn't the issue here. Even unencyclopedic articles can grow exponentially in notime. Just look at list of common phrases in various languages. People voted to keep it, but just try making it fit with Wikipedia is not slang and idiom guide and you get non sequitur arguments. / Peter Isotalo 15:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I still think small discussions, like this one, are useful. I'd say people have a right to have their opinions and votes, no matter their logical correctness... in fact , using the argument "I like waffles" would be just as valid as anything for voting... Otherwise, the List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand would surely have been deleted by now... --Fred-Chess 08:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • If neither logic nor reason are expected nor asked for in these discussions, we might as well not have the discussions at all and just have unmotivated, silent (hell, even secret) votes. Demanding respect (not acceptance) for making non sequitur argumentation is only going to further polarize the inclusionist/deletionist discourse and keep fueling bitter disputes among Wikipedians. At the very least admit that it's about a form of opinion-pushing, not a product of well-balanaced reasoning. Anyone who claims that your above example is a healthy sign of quality improvement should think it over. It strikes me as being closer to rules lawyering than reasonable argumentation. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 20 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Svenne

Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable, could be expanded. We have articles such as Gringo or Kraut. Martg76 22:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Martg76. feydey 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per same reasoning under Blatte. BrainyBroad 11:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peter Isotalo's reasoning above. / Alarm 08:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll have to vote Keep here too, as I did to Blatte (using same explanation)... --Fred-Chess 12:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as per my motivation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blatte. Let's wait and see a few months and revisit the issue then. Uppland 06:37, 19 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 187_Ride_or_Die

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Maybe if this were a major upcoming sequel, but not "a game in development." Lomn 14:04:39, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

  • Delete, as, not only is Wikipedia not a crystal ball, but the article is very poorly written and mostly contains incoherent nonsense.
  • Delete, non-notable Niz 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BrainyBroad 11:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, like I said on the deletion talk for Scarface: The World is Yours, it just needs cleaned up.......... alot. Keaton
  • Keep, since now I have added more information and put in a game cover.  Thorpe talk 11:25, 20 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Calibur IV

Soul Calibur III isn't even out yet. Seems strange to have this article as a result. BradBeattie 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is made up of nothing but rumor and speculation. Namco has never mentioned Soul Calibur IV. As of now, Soul Calibur IV is a product which may or may not exist in the future. --TheKoG 15:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only substantial content I see in the article is the statement that "Soul Calibur IV is likely to appear" on next-gen consoles... pfft. Whatever. jglc | t | c 16:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe add a sentence to Soul Calibur II. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 17:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is speculation. Nobody has even confirmed that there will be a Soul Calibur IV. Andre (talk) 20:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is probably referring to this. Basically, Namco has stated they are "planning to work on" a next-gen title, but there is no indication that they have started the planning stage, though it is likely they have since III is due to be out in 2 months. Either way it is speculation. This article should be restored as soon as an official annoucement is made, but someone will likely make a new page anyway. -- Bubbachuck 20:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculation. K1Bond007 21:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's way too early for this. Thunderbrand 22:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plus, there's no room for expansion as Namco doesn't even officially announce their games until about eight to ten months before their release; and since Soul Calibur III hasn't even been released, I'd say this page has no potential for added information for another two to three years. --Shackleton 17:23, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countstats

Advertising. DS 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Badly written ad. Nuff said. Dottore So 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. --Howcheng 20:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad. BrainyBroad 11:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpoint FM

is blatant advertising an acceptable criterion for speedy deletion yet? DS 15:08, 11 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B874 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Aaargh! Why not write articles on the redlinked towns in these pages, rather than on the roads that pass through them? the wub "?/!" 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe there should be a list of B roads in Britain or something, where all these roads can have their one sentence. -R. fiend 16:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete thanks to Pilatus going around and doing the weeding on these articles. --Tim Pope 17:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP or merge into List of B Roads in Britain or something similar.Gateman1997 17:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Same with every other B road. Get rid of them. I've already gone over how insignificant these roads are in the other vfds. - Hahnchen 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: please see - and join in at - Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom
  • Delete for reasoning given previously. Sabine's Sunbird 03:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Proto 
  • Keep/Merge - if they are of value merge as noted above --M-filecastle 06:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

t c 09:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Hahnchen. Nandesuka 13:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge as Gateman. Really it's incredible that anyone would vote to remove verifiable information of this kind. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I wish User:Laurel Bush filled in the redlinks of the places that that backroad passes. That would be a project that makes sense. No one will look up what villages are near a minor road, people will look up the village to see what roads go from it. Pilatus 00:00, 21 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B870 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn road. the wub "?/!" 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the others. -R. fiend 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Pilatus. --Tim Pope 17:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into List of B Roads in Britain or something similar.Gateman1997 17:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Same reason as I voted delete on every B road. B roads are the lose people, the lose. - Hahnchen 00:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road. The relevant town articles should mention it, though. Gazpacho 01:42, 12 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Street Gang

Non-notable San Francisco street gang, although there's no way in hell I'd tell them that to their faces. Googling shows that, although they do have some hits (no pun intended), those are mostly mixed with references to street gangs in the city of Jackson. DS 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless they have some major history of killing people like the Bloods and Crips(sp?). Gateman1997 17:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we have plenty of street gangs on wikipedia Yuckfoo 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too insignificant to warrant an entry. Yuckfoo makes (inadvertently) a good point: other banded ragtag ruffian irrelevancies should be flagged for deletion as well. Dottore So 20:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: unless they become famous/infamous (i.e. get featured on the news), not encyclopedic. -- Bubbachuck 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Gimme more info. Why are they notable? Have they killed anyone important? Are they heavily involved with the drug trade? As is, delete, but if expanded into something readable, I'd say keep. Hooper_X
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1001 technologies

It's a list of (I suppose) 1001... um... things. No wiki, no hope of NPOV, coherence, relevance, continued existence. Delete. Lomn 15:30:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have a policy to delete lists that group tea, viagra, donuts, and the hydrogen bomb, together. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 16:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I missed the donuts! BJAODN "Donut hole technology" Lomn 18:06:36, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the line added to the Technology page. — RJH 16:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Odd. Short of a very good explanation... delete. Flowerparty talk 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete...odd. Cake, light, and Coca-Cola aren't technologies in any meaning of the word. Hopelessly NPOV. --WolFox 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is this list about? How is "Volleyball" separate from "Volleyball (the game)" and why is that on a list with "Circumnavigation of globe". ManoaChild 03:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this useless page. ike9898 09:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like it'll get deleted - It is awfull in some respects but does promote thought - Glad I got to it before then . . . Can't do Supplemental pages? Ross 200805
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Kevin Hurst

Blatant promotion. He is a lawyer in Dallas, and did take part in the case stated, but he inflates its importance. The remainder is trivial. I tried to edit to significant only, but he keeps reverting the page. In the end he's just another lawyer with a high opinion of himself, so instead of an edit war I decided to vfd Outlander 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true. I am not Michael Kevin Hurst, but Outlander apparently bears a grudge against the guy. The remainder is not trivial, per Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end Outlander is just another random troll on the internet (or an arrogant person who lives in his own world) who gets his only joy in life by deleting the content that others work hard to create. DevilYouKnow

DevilYouKnow, please refrain from personal attacks. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I just suspect Outlanderssc is a sophisticated Internet troll. DevilYouKnow 17:46, August 11, 2005
That is disputable, and you do not help your case by going on the offensive. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm no troll. look at my edit list. I should also note that numerous attempts have been made to edit this article to an encyclopedic format, but DevilYouKnow simply re-writes it to the original text. Please check the page history. For my money, it's best we just be rid of him.--Outlander 18:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentOutlander didn't rewrite anything to an encyclopedic format or otherwise, he just deleted content. There is a distinction. When asked to explain himself Outlander spitefully put the article into VFD. --Devilyouknow 18:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Devilyouknow, this is the second time in this discussion I have asked you to refrain from making personal attacks. To characterize the deletion nomination as "spiteful", whether true or not, is a personal attack. Please do not make further attacks on other editors. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, this article appears to pretain to a notable enough individual. Please add citations however for verification. Could also stand some expansion. Gateman1997 17:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with citations as above or rewrite for NPOV (e.g. case list instead of "groundbreaking legal voodoo") Lomn 17:32:22, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP the article contains content suitable for Wikipedia.DevilYouKnow 17:46, August 11, 2005
  • INACCURATE - The author of the brief in T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc. was Bruce C. Morris, not Michael Kevin Hurst. Ref. [15] 146.145.24.131
  • RESPONSE - Remember there are attorneys on both sides of a case. Mr. Morris was opposite Mr. Hurst. From 965 S.W.2d 20:
 Michael K. Hurst, Marcie Lande Romick, Dallas, for Appellants.
 William C. Norvell, Scott D. Marrs, Bruce Charles Morris, Houston, for Appellee. --Devilyouknow
    • Rebuttal But if Mr. Morris filed the successful brief, as it says in [16], and he was opposite Mt. Hurst, wouldn't that mean Mr. Hurst lost? (Unsigned comment by 146.145.24.131 (talk • contribs))
    • response Please read the Court's opinion for yourself and determine the winner. It should be in any law library. --Devilyouknow 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please expand Yuckfoo 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete These cases aren't important. Neither is this guy. What difference have these cases made on the American legal system? JDoorjam 19:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This shouldn't even warrant discussion. Dottore So 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: google test "Michael K. Hurst" received 94 hits, quick glance of first 10 hits (most relevant) show membership in different associations, but no notable information that would qualify him as encyclopedic. Good general estimate for encyclopedic-ness is whether he's been mentioned in a major news publication, which doesn't appear to be the case -- Bubbachuck 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per JDoorjam and Bubbachuck. feydey 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bubbachuck. ESkog 23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn lawyer. --Etacar11 23:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete utterly nn and vanity project (Unsigned vote by 64.19.134.3 (talk • contribs))
  • Absolutely KEEP Noteworthy content. If we all vote to keep Bob Novak saying a dirty word on CNN, then this page clearly qualifies as noteworthy. --BrownHornet21 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. I would say "no assertion of notablity", speedy. Sdedeo 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Merely putting the word "notable" in an article is not enough to assert notability. Tonywalton 11:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment an overview of T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc. is available at [17] for those who wish to determine if it is noteworthy. (Unsigned comment by 146.145.24.131 (talk • contribs))
    • NOTE 146.145.24.131 is a sock puppet for Outlander - compare their edit pages. (Unsigned comment by User:DevilYouKnow)
      • Comment It's not a sock puppet if you don't vote or express an opinion. I just put up a link anyone can find on Google, to save the editors a few moments of their time. Completely NPOV ---Outlander 22:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and vanity. Lack of google hits, lack of impact on the legal system. Being a lawyer is not sufficient. Themindset 22:32, 12 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Generation Software, Inc.

Not notable. Google = 511, Alexa = 1,981,781 . Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Flowerparty</fonf> talk 17:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten this article. The company is small but notable in its field, an IBM partner on their cinderella kit, iServer 400. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes... moving on from that surreal encounter. I'll happily change my vote when I see any evidence of this notability.
    • The five pages listed as "brochureware" are among 18,251 similar entires.
    • The criteria for "Advanced Paternership" as indicated here involves nothing of notability, but acting as a quasi-salesman for IBM.
    • As to the "customer experiance"
      • It's submitted by the company to IBM,
      • It's a requirement to become an "Advanced Partner", and
      • The footnote on the page indicates "It is simply verification that your application is installed at a customer site running on strategic IBM technologies."
    • The mere presence of a quote submitted by the company to IBM means what again?
    • Ahhh... I see the quote. One line in an on-line magazine. Hmmm.
    • If someone wants to argue "Non notability is not a criterion for deletion" they should argue that, not give us Google-scratchings. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Aaron, you've moved the goalposts. You ask for media mentions, I give them. You ask for evidence that they're an IBM business partner, I give you that. Then you misrepresent Computer World as "an online magazine", you misread the criteria for advanced membership, and you wave away the masses of direct recommendations of the company's product on IBM's own website as "Google-scratchings". And then, faced with evidence that this is a company whose product is directly endorsed by the number one player in business intelligence and mid-range computing, IBM, you have the nerve to ask for evidence of 'notability! --Tony SidawayTalk 06:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ummm. No. Not at all. I asked for news media mentions. I stated I did not find them on IBM's website. You did, a tribute to your persistance. The "bar" to advanced membership involves operating IBM "middleware" at one of your client's sites. Which almost always involves the client buying something from IBM. That's why they make people partner's - to sell IBM profucts and services while basking in the reflceted glory. I fail to see masses of direct recomendations... in fact I fail to see even one. What I do see is quite a lot of company-cruft, originated by the company in question on IBM's website. And if you have evidence that the one-line quote in Computer World appeared in print you have failed to present it. Why don't you (and I) get off this VfD and let the people think for themselves? Is that really too much to ask? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', evidence of notability does not convince me that this coumpany does something encyclopedic--nixie 06:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 06:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, verifiable != encyclopaedic. NN. Proto t c 09:55, 12 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Harvey

  • Delete. This looks like a vanity page. A search for his name and expertise brings up only 7 hits, some of which are not him. This guy got his PhD a couple years ago; it will be some time before his work is considered encyclopedic. Perhaps this should be a "speedy delete"? csloat 15:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Pretty borderline. I was unable to confirm this bloke even exists. But a guest commentator on the BBC World Service is probably notable, and his field is not likely to receive much notice. I'll pass for now. — RJH 16:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy. His alleged work for the BBC World Service is a legit claim of notability, and as such I googled "sean harvey" "BBC world service", and got 3 unique hits, none of which even seemed to be him. -R. fiend 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and if he becomes relevant some day, I'll even get a screenshot and upload it myself. Actually, I just won't vote to delete him again. JDoorjam 19:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would not delete. I am sure that I know Dr.Harvey. Much of his BBC World Service work has been in Moscow even though I myself did try to find things on him in Google and found only ONE entry confirming a doctor of late 20s (probably suggesting the date) in philology (if you can call that linguistics). Whether him or not, I listen frequently to Radio 4 in England and can say that I do know who this man is. He appeared in Episode 8 of the Roots of English transmitted in early 2000: my daughter has been using the tapes of this show for a college project and she borrowed these recordings from the local library. I am sure of his existence and would urge him to publish more of his own info on the web. User:Mario55 12-08-05
    • I am sure of my own existence but that does not merit a wikipedia entry about me. There are a lot of young PhDs; not all of us merit a wikipedia page.--csloat 04:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I watched the South Bank Show in 2002 when he was interviewed by Melvin Bragg. Brotadac 13aug05
  • NO DELETE Please, lets be sensible. Just because one or two of you don't know him doesn't mean that I don't. His name is known to us at the BBC, particularly in the Ukraine and Russia where he is best known.
    • Both of the above anonymous entries came from the same IP 212.124.247.77. I do not think they should be considered separate votes.--csloat 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't jump to conclusions kid, this I.P is used around the clock by dozens of people on more than one terminal, why we build computers here at this factory. As it so haoppens, Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopaedia for many of us. Brotadac 17aug05
  • Weak keep. Googling in the latin alphabet won't help with stuff in cyrillic.. Secretlondon 05:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • He's a brit, and allegedly working for the BBC, not Pravda. If he doesn't google in this alphabet I don't see what chance he has in Cyrillic. Have you tried? -R. fiend 13:56, 18 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, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Zaitchik

The subject may well be notable, but this article is nearly content-free. The google hits seem to refer to a press editor in NY who could be this guy, and a Czech politician. Scimitar parley 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Just so we're clear- delete. --Scimitar parley 16:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Does not assert notability, therefore fits CSD A7. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per Ëvilphœnix Tonywalton 11:39, 12 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nakamura Diary

For a related VFD discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Articles on Imperial Japan.

This article is a mixture of translation and description of an uncited primary source: the war diary of a man identified only as Corporal Nakamura. I have been unable to trace the source document through Google, the British Library or Nielsen Bibliographic Data. The first draft of the article was in broken English, from which subsequent editors have guessed the intent, but the accuracy of the present version of the translations cannot be verified without the source. It has been suggested that this should be transwikied to Wikisource but the work is inappropriate for that project because it is not simply a transcript of a source. So, as matters stand, the article is not quite encyclopedic, not quite a source and not quite original research. Perhaps it would have a home somewhere at Wikicities. I am convinced, however, that it has no place here. —Theo (Talk) 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, as a summary of a historical document it's pretty good as it stands. Could use some touch up.Gateman1997 17:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What and where is the historical document that is being summarized here? When performing a "touch up", how do you propose that editors be able to confirm that their summary still accurately reflects the historical document being summarized? Uncle G 19:53:07, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be researched, cited, expanded, and its notability explicitly stated. JDoorjam 19:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Theo. --Scimitar parley 22:54, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Atlas Games

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article makes some fairly extraordinary claims, with little evidence to back them up. Without anything better than the article creator's own website, delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete: Author claims on his talk page that there are sources from NYPost, etc, and I've suggested that he add them (And I'll change vote to Keep if relevant references appear). I've also suggested that he not shotgun his associated category across all relevant events, but that's a different issue. Lomn 17:21:17, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • delete. does not deserve an article - nor a separate category (Category:The_Atlas_Games). I can't verify any of the sources (don't have newspaper descriptions) but this site does not look at all professional and since the article is submitted by User:Atlasgames it looks suspisous. Website also uses wikipedia content without credit. johnSLADE (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete looks like an ad to meJordanmills 20:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete me too. Dottore So 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know how true they are, but there are references:

http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2754 http://www.theatlasgames.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=40

Still, it sounds like pie in the sky that will probably never get off the ground. And they charge the athletes to participate, according to the FAQ on their website. Delete until there are some news articles in mainstream news outlets. Zoe 21:29, August 11, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agropio Fallaver

"Agropio Fallaver is a character featured in the 1980 film The Falls, directed by Peter Greenaway". This is a minor character of a minor cult film, which I do not believe is notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:55, August 11, 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 Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian architecture

POV, inappropriate tone, and apparently a copyvio (can't find the source though). I can't see this developing into anything useful (not that I know anything about architecture though), so delete unless there's a complete rewrite. - ulayiti (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is definite potential for an article here and I would vote to keep even a decent stub. This article is so woeful that I doubt it is a copyvio from anywhere. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. It will be revreated with useful content. Pavel Vozenilek 02:58, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Mary

Cleveland heavy metal band that existed for two years in the 80's. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn/Band vanity Soltak 19:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:01, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finn McCleave

How has this survived since May? This article perhaps best exemplifies the kind of criticism Wikipedia recieves as a legitimate source of information- it's totally, horribly unverifiable, (5 google hits, all from mirrors), and looks like it was written by a drunk 15-year old. Delete with all possible prejudice. Scimitar parley 17:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There should be a speedy criterion for these. I especially like the way it links into Finn (being one myself). :) - ulayiti (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sending this to speedy based on A7. --Howcheng 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A7 doesn't apply here, since the article clearly asserts importance. I think it ought to, though. - ulayiti (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, a "visionary filmmaker" for whom no film credits are actually listed, about whom is said "his current film enterprises are few", and whose name doesn't google, despite "gathering strong acclaim". Right. I would be willing stretch A7 to include vague and obviously inaccurate assertions of notability...if not, then delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • IMDB search reveals nothing. A simple assertion of importance shouldn't count if there's no proof. --Howcheng 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, not notable, vanity. feydey 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 09:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Proto t c 14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Secretlondon 05:58, 18 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 Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbapedia

It's still not a notable site on its own, despite being useful to Pokémon fans. (It has been linked on the Pokémon article.)
Note that it has been through VFD before, and the consensus then was to delete. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wish that all the pokemon gibberish could leave here and go there. Ben-w 17:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a wikiweb directory of wikis. Lord Bob 17:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sending this one to speedy delete using {{deleteagain}}. --Howcheng 21:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note the requirement in WP:CSD that the content of this new article must be "substantially identical" for it to be speediable. -Splash 23:59, 11 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chav vehicle modification

I never quite put my finger on why, but these type of articles just don't belong here --Doc (?) 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with chav. Kappa 19:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and Merge per Kappa. JDoorjam 19:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Clean up what? Merge what? The whole thing is unverifiable, POV, utterly subjective, crap --Doc (?) 14:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And someone block User:86.133.117.16 for vandalising the VfD. Proto t c 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sliggy 17:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and clean up // Liftarn 10:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chav exists. Pilatus 13:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV and subjective. Secretlondon 14:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but add verifiable information (if there is any) to Chav. --βjweþþ (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless even as a redirect. / --Peter Isotalo 01:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If it should be anywhere it should be under Chav AllanHainey 10:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ryan Delaney talk 18:36, 20 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twatwaffle

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Twatwaffle/2005-05-21.

dicdef neologism Randwicked 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This article apparently of different content to original deleted article. I've reactivated this page, don't know if there's a way to start a new one.

  • Delete: more content for the much-awaited UrbanWiktionary.com JDoorjam 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and speedy if it's recreated. Ben-w 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdefs don't belong here. I suggest that this be put on Wictionary, if anything. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:00, 11 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MM3-WebAssistant-Proxy-Offline-Browser

Glossy advertisement. Also a copyvio, but since the creator is User:MM3Tools I'm going to assume s/he would grant permission. FreplySpang (talk) 17:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement. --Howcheng 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty, but not encyclopaedic Tonywalton 11:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. We have prepared the description under adaptation to the formal structure of Wikipedia and the GNU Free Documentation License.

Corresponding categories are available in Wikipedia for software products. Similar products also are listed (See e.q. Offline_Explorer, HTTrack) Please inform us if you consider changes to be necessary. -- MM3Tools

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Minamyer

Overlong bio of a guy who ran in the Republican primary for a seat in Congress, losing badly. He also was on some town board or something somewhere, but it's hardly noteworthy. Members of Congress are notable, but random people who make poor attempts to reach that office are a dime a dozen. I'd say your average grade school teacher has a greater impact on the world. -R. fiend 18:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, though let's not bash the NNs. Deleting them, I think, is sufficient. JDoorjam 19:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Strong keep. I think that NPOV articles about minor politicians are fine. He might not be the most successful politician around, but Wikipedia should have as much political coverage as possible and this is a well-written, interesting article. Academic Challenger 05:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. He was a school board member and on the board of trustees of one of the most populous townships in Ohio. And the nasty ad hominem attack is really unnecesary. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • What ad hominem attack? I'm perfectly serious when I say a grade school teacher has a greater impact on the world than a guy who kind of ran for a pretty high office, or a member of the board of trustees for a township. Teachers directly impact thousands of people, often pretty substantially, over the course of their careers. Town board members maybe cast a vote on whether to raise the sales tax a quarter percent and such. Most people can't name a single one, but I bet everyone remembers who their fourth grade teacher is. That's my point. If he actaully got the nomination we might have something, but he didn't even come close. -R. fiend 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and since when does wikipedia have articles on school board members? -R. fiend 16:44, 16 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Corporation

nn, at least I find no mention of THIS tag corporation during a cursory search. Advert. Delete Usrnme h8er 18:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn/advert Soltak 19:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Company may or not be notable. A quick Google didn't show anything. However, a lack of verifiable information and poor state of article (ie All caps) means that it should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- current form is a promo. User:Nichalp/sg 07:12, August 16, 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

[edit] Run Away, from the planet Zebra

This page should be deleted, since it is so obviously a cut-and-paste of the Plan_9_From_Outer_Space page.The movie Planet Zebra is also quite certainly inexistant (no hit on IMDB)The Son of Oink 22:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't get this speedied, and it doesn't appear to have been listed, so here it is. Gazpacho
  • Delete, or speedy as obvious hoax. Gazpacho 01:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I actually like this movie quite a lot, but it does seem misrepresented by this page, perhaps a re-write or a stub --172.154.169.111 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, it's a hoax. No trace of it on IMDb and the single Google result points to Wikipedia. (Edit: BTW, the part about Tim Burton's Tiger Wood is a good BJAODN candidate ;-) --Azazell0 08:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. -- Curps 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; hoax. I'm amazed how much effort gets put into these sandcastles that get destroyed so quickly by waves of VfD.... JDoorjam 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silly rewrite of Plan 9 article. --Etacar11 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletez0r OMG it's still here 5 days after the most recent bal33t vote. :O (Unsigned vote by 216.49.220.19 (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. Woohookitty 09:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B9168 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Difficult one really (usually we seem to be trying to decide whether a person or band is notable enough!) but I agree with Pilatus that this road doesn't seem to have anything to justify its appearance in WP (and I wouldn't condone an article on every single B road in the UK!). I note that the creator lives in that area, so it is sortof akin to a vanity page. I tend therefore towards delete. --Vamp:Willow 19:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Pilatus --Tim Pope 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge with List of B Routes in the UK. Gateman1997 21:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Pilatus, see other B road vfds for opinion. - Hahnchen 00:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road. Gazpacho 01:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: please see - and join in at - Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom
  • Delete Minor road. Sabine's Sunbird 03:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT Proto t c 09:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Usrnme h8er 14:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the others. Is it just me or are there no keep votes at the consensus page for B-roads? -R. fiend 14:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge as Gateman. Roads are the new schools. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean another pointless idiosyncratic crusade to drown Wikipedia in useless trivia, then? Delete minor road (2 miles!). --Calton | Talk 01:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Radiant_>|< 09:21, August 22, 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. Woohookitty 09:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B871 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete as per Pilatus --Tim Pope 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge with List of B Routes in the UK. Gateman1997 21:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:12, 11 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. Woohookitty 09:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B873 road

B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete as per Pilatus --Tim Pope 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge with List of B Routes in the UK. Gateman1997 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roads designated at the national level --SPUI (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor road. Gazpacho 01:43, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The scary pirates

More band vanity, I'm afraid. Created by user:Thescarypirates. Flowerparty talk 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Curps 18:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That was a weird edit conflict. Flowerparty talk 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NNBV. (yes, I am to lazy to write out what it means). →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 18:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated. What is it with garage bands, anyway? - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and can somebody make {{VfD-NNBV}} a standard tag, please? JDoorjam 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 12 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 to Juno. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iuno

This appears to be a vanity page (though my knowledge of Netherlands rock groups is not exactly comprehensive). I'd like to Delete and then Redirect to Juno, which Iuno is an alternate spelling of. JDoorjam 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Outside of self-promotion, I can find no mention of this band. Even in Dutch. Dottore So 20:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. Redirect to Juno is good. --Etacar11 00:11, 12 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Life As We Know It

Delete. More nonsense from that Ribbage-duck/Barse fellow. -- BD2412 talk 19:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Waste of energy for all involved. JDoorjam 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete anything to do with this nonsense. --Etacar11 00:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. This should live on uncyclopedia.com Delete from here Tonywalton 11:50, 12 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Ethel (1960)

Delete Non-notable hurricane causing no documented deaths or damages. It's gets just under 2000 Google hits [23] almost all of which are from meteorological sites. The only thing even remotely notable about it is the fact that it's one of only 25 Atlantic Hurricanes to reach Category 5, and that doesn't warrant an article. Soltak 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. One of just 25 in 150 years sounds notable to me. Pilatus 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge as appropriate with hurricane JDoorjam 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Category 5 hurricanes are unique events that are notable enough for entry.Gateman1997 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, hurricanes are plenty notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:03, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • Comment I would remind everyone that this hurricane resulted in no documented deaths or damages. It's no more notable than a bad rain storm. If the delete vote fails I plan to redirect the article to List of notable tropical cyclones where Ethel is mentioned. Soltak 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We're all very aware of this.Gateman1997 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Then might I inquire as to why you wish to keep the article? Soltak 21:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Not that I should have to explain further then I already did, but the fact that it's a Category 5 hurricane deems it pretty worthy of an article in my book. There have only been 25 in the last 100 years. It's not like this is some obsure Tropical Depression. Gateman1997 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gateman1997's rationale. Plus IMO any named hurricane is notable enough for article, even a stub for a non-damaging event. 23skidoo 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any Category 5 hurricane should get its own article, damage or not. It simply doesn't happen all that often. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ten minutes of actually reading some of the 62,000+ Google hits results in learning that Ethel ('60) was the only hurricane to make originall landfall in the region between MS and the FL panhandle, that it is unusual for hurricanes to form in the Gulf of Mexico, that there were only 2 Cat 5 storms that year, and that the name Ethel was not retired as a result of this storm. All of this seems notable enough to mention. The fact that WP is not paper means that we can be expansive on what articles appear, provided that smaller articles are well-linked to more substantive articles that will round out the topic for the casual reader (who is the only person using this resource). --Mddake 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment This article was 2 minutes old when Soltak tagged it for deletion. The anonymous editor (beware the urge to denigrate anonymity) who created this article made a number of contributions in the field of hurricanes in a short period of time. Let's give this article a chance to develop in the normal course of things. --Mddake 00:22, 12 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bike Company

A jockstrap for bicycle delivery boys? Sounds like patent nonsense to me. Doesn't pass the Google test either. But I'm willing to give this page the benefit of the doubt, so I'll abstain from voting for now. Aecis 19:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete The information can be verified, but the company is already mentioned in the (surprisingly, almost suspiciously) detailed entry for jockstrap. Nothing further about the company seems notable. Hence, 100% redundant.
  • Keep It's a 130-year-old brand and innovator in athletic products.
  • Keep established companies. DS1953 22:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article then be renamed to BIKE Athletic Company or something to that extent? Aecis 22:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's just say I can verify it exists. ;) Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bike is a major athletic company. Article definitely needs expansion, though. Hooper_X
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 move to Our Italian Husband. -- BD2412 talk 04:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rent-a-Husband

Wikipedia is not a message board. Delete.--DrTorstenHenning 19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to DS1953, the article is no longer a message. Change my vote to Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 07:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Move to proper name after rewrite. It definitely looks better now. Jaxl | talk 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Howcheng 21:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and move. Much better now. --Howcheng 15:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yes, what ^ said. --Etacar11 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, move to the proper name, although it doesn't appear to be getting a US release anytime soon (4.3 stars on IMDB...). --Etacar11 02:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Move to Our Italian Husband after VfD. The article was very poorly done but it is a real movie. I rewrote it into a real stub. DS1953 02:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Way to go, DS1953. You turned all of us! :) --Etacar11 15:29, 12 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 (No consensus) No votes. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ldapguru

Delete. nn. (only 35 hits on google) --R.Koot 20:10, 11 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia_Pellegrino

Non-notability, and possible vanity. Refer to User_talk:200.103.250.39 for more details. R Lee E 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Good work. Dottore So 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice work, Sherlock. It appears the text may even be a copyvio from her book bio. Note the last sentence: "Alchemy of Transformation," her second book, is in final process and shall be published by Scortecci Publishing House by the middle of 2000. --Howcheng 21:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn author vanity. --Etacar11 00:20, 12 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 (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hawk-i

Seems to be advertising for some sort of state healthcare. Not encyclopedic DJ Clayworth 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Just an ad.Dottore So 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rephrase as an article. Appears to be a government program worth paying attention to. Fg2 04:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Greatest game villains

Delete. I doubt it is possible to accuratly measure the size of computer character. --R.Koot 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Made me laugh though. Dottore So 20:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, subjective list, original research. Thue | talk 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All your Delete are belong to us. I couldn't help but laugh either when I saw Cats from "Zero Wing" listed! For great justice! - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone set up us the Delete. (Yeah, I know, the horse is already dead, but I'm gonna beat it anyway.) Listcruft, inherently POV. Where are the villains from PC games? android79 21:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bowser could totally beat up all those Final Fantasy guys. ESkog 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: does anyone know if this is the same user who created Most powerful jedi? If so, he'll be 2 for 2 in terms of deleted stupiditycruft... Marblespire 01:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't even include freakin' Mother Brain. Lame! Hooper_X
  • Delete. Krellian? Kuja? This isn't even a very good blatantly POV list. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to villain. --SPUI (talk) 22:09, 16 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 no consensus. The amount of new users here is disturbing, and therefore I cannot close as a delete, despite the overwhelming amount of delete votes. I suggest that this discussion may be reopened later, but it should not become such a circus (caused by both sides) again. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FilePile

  • Not Notable private file sharing site Linnwood (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Known member of Filepile - Xed 00:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am NOT a member of Filepile. — Linnwood (talk) ]] 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Newbornstranger An article about a website that no one can join? The point is?
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Linnwood (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator --Phroziac (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: filepile gets over 36,000 hits on Google. Alexa rank for www.filepile.org is 27,503. It certainly seems to be well known. DS1953 01:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article currently includes such unverifiable info as "one of the most unusual on-line communities" (which I sincerely doubt). Nothing here indicates notability. Either vanity or promotion. (Not sure why you'd promote a private community, though). Incidentally, filepile.com appears to be offline [24]. Dystopos 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It is online. You used the wrong URL - [25]. - Xed 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And as a member [26], you should know. - Xed 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Hard to find verifiable information, isnt it? Was that site I blogged about .com or .org? Are they the same? Were they the same then? Is the article about the same one I blogged about? Has FilePile gone private since then? Do I still have an account? What else should I know? Why does it matter? I didn't nominate the article. I didn't even vote until it became clear that no real arguments for keeping it exist. I'm still ready to entertain such discussion, but I'm losing patience with these unfounded insinuations. Dystopos 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Luckiliy, I can answer your questions for you. The link was .org see [27]. Hilariously, you've changed it on the original page to .com. Any reason why? Ha. And you've already admitted to being a member on your talk page. Why go to all the lengths of changing .org to .com on your own page? - Xed 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This Dystopos certainly is inscrutable. Dystopos 01:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Until he comes up with a real arguement for keeping the page ignore the troll.
  • Delete When did Wikipedia become a web directory? --Ryland 05:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Wikipedia doesn't need a page on every website in existence thewittyname 06:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for this. --SnackAdmiral 01:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete I see no good reason for this page to be here. If "FilePile" is in fact a private community, the only purpose this article serves is self-promotion for the site's users. Nobody seems to know anything definite about "FilePile" other than that the domain name exists; I don't think Wikipedia should be a forum for speculation and pointless self-promotion. What will be next, articles about individual livejournal user pages? --Eo 06:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (Less than 10 edits - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Hardly a useful web resource, is it. zadcat 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Every online community considers themselves important and unique, but not every batch of threads and links deserves its own entry here. Davebug 14:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (Very few edits - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
    • While I'm not a hugely active Wikipedia contributer, my account was most assuredly not created "for voting in this" Davebug 17:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • User has 8 contributions. 6 of which are to do with the article. - Xed 17:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Once this private web site gets a Wikipage, then all the private web sites will want one. Wikipedia shouldn't be a vanity project for other web sites. --Grum0613 15:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (Very few edits - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
      • Is there a minimal-contribution limit for voting? If not, what's your point? I've been a member for almost a year, with no previous contributions to this specific topic. Find another axe to grind. --Grum0613 20:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)-
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. -℘yrop (talk) 18:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of the internet and there are far more notable sites than this that don't have a page -jimblackler 21:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, unverifiable (both links offered as references require logins). — Adam Conover † 20:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that some of Filepile's 8000 members wish to maintain it as a sort of secret club does not justify removing or defacing accurate information about this important online community.
    • The site has been mentioned and discussed numerous times on several Web sites and blogs, including Metafilter (11 times!). Google reports that nearly 7000 pages contain the site's URL (filepile.org). Given that Filepile is well-known and often discussed, there is a wealth of verifiable information about the site.
    • As well, Wikipedia contains a great many articles on secret societies -- including the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan, and Freemasonry -- information about which one would expect to be difficult to obtain.
      • This "wealth of verifiable information" does not appear in the article, nor are the statistics about how many times a subject has been discussed on Metafilter particularly impressive or encyclopedic. The "secret societies" named have all actually done something that made an impact on the world. If "FilePile" has achieved any notability, it has not been demonstrated here. Dystopos 03:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia contained an article on Metafilter when it had a closed membership, making arguments about Filepile's privacy moot.

--Dunheroin 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) - (User created purely for voting in this ) (Dunheroin's second edit is this) --Celestianpower hab 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Metafilter had closed its membership, but the site was viewable to the public.
  • File Pile is not a secret society. It is a private file sharing site.
— Linnwood (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What zadcat said. I come here for useful information, not to find out about a private online community. Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • did somebody really just compare the site to that of the KKK and the Mafia? Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yet another user created for the purpose of voting delete on this article. Wonder where they all come from ...? - Xed 15:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • actually no, check my date. Flaunted 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • yes, you have 50 contributions. most of them to do with FilePile. As for your statement "I come here for useful information, not to find out about a private online community"... that's a bit absurd as you are a member of FilePile, which is why you (and the others "new users" above) are trying to delete it. - Xed 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • 50 contributions, i dont fill my day with editing pages trying to get myself banned...so bringing up history doesn't really help your arguement.
  • Delete too secret What is this nonsense? Do we have to have wikipedia entries on every private web site in existence? ZviGilbert 17:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have removed the strike-throughs added to other people's comments. Leave it up to the administrator who closes the discussion to evaluate the merit of particular votes. Dystopos 18:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete personal attack too secret The original intent of this article seems to have been to libel Mr. Torrez, indicating that he runs some sort of piracy operation. Since the site is private there is no way to confirm this. The site may be interesting, but we have no way of knowing much about it and confirming the truth of what contributors write about it.--tranquileye 20:53, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
    • tranquileye has been repeatedly vandazing the article. - Xed 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC) As I said, I don't know which site this entry should concern.--tranquileye 04:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Comment Which site is this article about? FilePile.com was a shareware BBS site in the 1990s. FilePile.org is a private site of some sort.--tranquileye 20:53, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete Upon furher reflection, I have decided to change my vote. This website is no more important than any other on the internet and does not require a wikipedia page. It is a blip with-in a blip on the radar screen of the internet -- GIR 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I expect many other keep votes were removed - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (Easy to check, see below. Dystopos 13:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC) )
  • Delete Not sure what the value is to the wiki about this site. Those that have axes to grind about keeping it need to get some persepctive and understand that everything that is in a wiki may not really need to be there. Plus the personal attacks in this entry will just mean that a single person will be able to carry on a pointless campaign that those involved must follow to erase the BS. This is not was a wiki is about. Delete this entry and move it to the USENET. sirhc_srihc 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Users only contribution - Xed 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Private Site.
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Private Site. PugAchev 01:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Private Site. ElVaquero 21:54, August 15, 2005
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Not even as notable as GNAA. Kwh 06:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete i created an account at Wikipedia today. yes, thank you, i am feeling right at home. i'd been a bit of a lurker, reading lots of great articles but never felt i really had the time to get involved. i could tell that people put a lot of time and effort into creating compelling and accurate content here. but then today i got an IM from a friend telling me about all of this ridiculous business going on relative to this File Pile stuff. always interested in a good laugh i came to check it out. so i find what appears to be an inaccurate and volatile page dedicated to a website that nobody knows much about. i see alot of accusations of "vandalism" but without any way to verify one way or another, who's to say anything is valid or not? a screenshot is hardly a smoking gun nor a basis for fact. what's the big deal about a site that exchanges pictures, music, and movies amongst members? i could name 15 of those off the top of my head. i suppose i am not a member of File Pile because i have found outlets for what i want at every turn(link) on the internet. please accept my delete vote as my first official contribution to Wikipedia. if i can't be buggered to create new content, i can certainly help by getting rid of the useless stuff. - dexXed
    • (User created purely for voting in this - Xed enter your comments and date stamp here - thanks buddy!)
  • Keep - Most delete users were created to vote for this articles deletion. Also they removed GIR's keep vote, and possibly others. Note: a user with the IP 158.234.10.144 has been trying to get my password. I expect it's one of the above "new users". Can an admin block them, and their colleagues? It seems like its an orchestrated campaign. Thanks. - Xed 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Examination of the article history would reveal if there were any other votes deleted, and by whom. I don't know what you mean by "and their colleagues". There are established measures that can be taken against vandals and sockpuppets. Dystopos 13:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Second Dystopos. Also, though there appear to be sock puppets / very new users voting on this article, that in itself is certainly not a reason to KEEP the page -- at the most, their votes should simply be discounted. Xed, thanks for being vigilant about who's who in this vote, but I will point out that you haven't offered a positive reason for why it should be kept. The real issue is whether this article is appropriate for the Wikipedia -- can you offer an argument for why this particular private, inaccessible, low-membership site deserves inclusion? Frankly, I can't see what distinguishes it from any of the other thousands of small communities on the web. — Adam Conover † 19:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Apparently it has 8000 members. [[GNAA}] has how many? A dozen? And yet that stays. Metafilter is a close analogy - that stays. Point of Rocks, Wyoming (population:3) is an article. (average family size:2)... And to be honest, the fact that dozens of users have been created to try and delete the article paradoxically adds to its importance. - Xed 19:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Where are you getting the number 8,000? — Linnwood (talk) ]] 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I can view the Metafilter site without being a member (but I can't add comments), but I don't have any way of viewing the contents of FilePile.org. I'm not sure what value there is to provide information about a private website that few people can view beyond the login page.--Grum0613 20:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I think a website with 8000 members trumps a "town" with a population of 3. - Xed 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
              • he also made "dropload," an excellent site similiar to yousendit.com. Flaunted 21:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
                • If you wish to make an article about Torrez, that may or may not be worthwhile, but that is not the topic of the FilePile artilce. — Linnwood (talk) ]] 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable vanity, probable advertising. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Where did this figure of 8000 come from? A lot of discussion on the merits of small census-designated places and GNAA has taken place and they have been kept for various reasons. What I'm missing here is any argument that "FilePile" has done anything worthy of mention in an encyclopedia besides (probably) existing and (possibly) spawning some VfD puppets. I had't voted until now, but I'm starting to agree with the nominator. Delete Dystopos 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) -- I checked up on the "Andre Torrez" linked in the FilePile article, and he does list "FilePile" among his "more me" projects. The link just goes to the login page. So we can verify it's existence. Also, it looks like he worked on "DropCash" which I *have* actually heard of. Maybe an article about Torrez or DropCash with a mention of FilePile as a private file-trading site is better than keeping an article with little hope having encyclopedic content? Just a thought. Dystopos 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Further proof of an organised campaign in that User:AndreTorrez has removed any mention of Filepile from one on the linked pages in the article. No one can deny its organised now. In fact the users may all be Andre Torrez. - Xed
    • If I had that much time on my hands I'd be spending my days reverting pages on subjects I know nothing about. Stop being so bitter, Xed. This is a campaign because you are a hurt person. AndreTorrez 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There may or may not be organized vandalism going on, but that is irrelevant. The article is about a not notable private site, and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Linnwood (talk) ]] 00:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Linnwood appears to be a member of filepile. - Xed 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If it can be proved that User:Linnwood is a member of Filepile, and therefore started the orchestrated campaign to delete this article, would that invalidate the Vote for Deletion? - Xed 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist party FilePile — Linnwood (talk) ]] 00:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, I thought I started this campaign single-handedly. You need to get your hunches in order, mister. AndreTorrez 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as "invalidating" the vote for deletion. The worst case is "no consensus" and some vandal policing. The subjects of Wikipedia articles have been allowed to comment in VfD, but usually their votes are discounted. It is probably best to report your suspicions with as much restraint as possible. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. (And that goes for everybody). Dystopos 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't even know how to vote. I am responding to his attacks about my "waging a campaign single-handedly".
        • No response is necessary. A baseless accusation is a personal attack which is not permissible. Responding in kind to personal attacks is also prohibited. Dystopos 01:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable file-sharing site, and many claims aren't verifiable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User has roughly 1800 edits, and most certainly did not create this account just to vote. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


Wow, this page has gotten confusing to read. I've made an attempt to start a conversation about this whole mess on the article's talk page, by way of breaking down my perspective on the events of the past few days. — Adam Conover † 06:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete because Xed commenting all over this page is more annoying than any sockpuppeting. my reasoning may or may not be valid. - Stoph 16:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A puerile reason. - Xed 22:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep - I actually read about filepile somewhere, and wanted to know about it. Wikipedia provided the information. Is that not exactly what it is for? --Toast 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You would think so. Others disagree - Xed 22:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Non-notable, site is even down. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 16:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It was down, but now back up. Non-notable still stands, though. Delete. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And down again. It's either bouncing back and forth, blocking WP referrers, or randomizing what page we get. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Private filesharing site, small active membership, not yet notable for encyclopedic coverage. Site down, too. Jason 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. - EurekaLott 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Netkook is abusing wikipedia for his vendetta. Townbully 20:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Ignore every other argument about new users voting, vandalism, personal vendettas, etc. and cut this argument down to what the vote for deletion page says it must be about. The article. In this case, what you have is one description which may or may not be accurate about a closed or perhaps non-existent site. How would anyone check the veracity of the article? At the present time it's of no more value than idle speculation and as such is not going to help anyone understand anything. If the article were re-written to the point where it was filled with "alleged to", "supposedly", "might have", "has been rumored to be", etc. then maybe it would meet what seem to be the quality standards required of Wikipedia. If not, then the article as it stands is of no merit, because there is no way to take what you have in front of you and verify whether it is in fact true or utter nonsense. And furthermore, that situation is not going to change. When I go to FilePile.com I get no site at all and FilePile.org is a login with no new user signup.
  • Ask yourself, if someone were to write any other article and make claims for which they could provide no attribution or proof, what would Wikipedia do? My guess is either require a radical rewrite of the article or delete it altogether. CaptainMarvel 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above comments — Linnwood 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • New user. 3 edits. Other FP members have confirmed many of the details in the article. - Xed 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, if I may, I'd refer you to the Wikipedia standards for dealing with deletion. If I may quote from the Wikipedia Guide to VfDs - "The most important thing to remember about Votes for Deletion, especially for newcomers who are unfamiliar with it, is that it is about the article, not about you. Even if the article is a vanity page or an autobiography, please remember that Wikipedians are discussing the article, and whether it is worth inclusion in Wikipedia." Your response is to how many edits I've made, not to the substance of my argument which is about this article and the maximum quality level it will ever achieve. CaptainMarvel 01:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you site those references? Dystopos 23:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd love to , but I'm too busy reverting vandals. - Xed 23:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be easier on you now. Can you please cite which FilePile members have confirmed which details, and where they did so? Not that it matters much, as this site is still non-notable. — Adam Conover † 23:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Votes

Note that some of these votes have been made by users who had either no or very few edits before voting. See annotations by Xed above for details. (Just trying to make sure all the info is in one place.) — Adam Conover † 08:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not just some. Nearly all - Xed 09:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
A very quick count (i.e., not double-checked) gave me ten votes that you did not comment on. This is hardly "nearly all." — Adam Conover † 20:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would say only about 5 votes were genuine. The rest were new users, FilePile members, or users who have engaged in vandalism on the article - Xed 21:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Votes of new users are certainly often discounted in tallies. As for FilePile members, apart from account creation date, what means do you have to distinguish who is a FilePile user and who is not? It seems that date of account creation is the only criterion we can use -- certainly, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators that would suggest that a longstanding Wikipedia member who is also a member of FilePile is ineligible for voting.
Yes, but there's an organised campaign to delete it - Xed 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Just not very well organized, I guess. --tranquileye 12:12:16, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

As for vandals, there is also nothing that outright precludes them from voting; additionally, as I have mentioned elsewhere you have been far too liberal with the term "vandal", applying it to any editor who makes a deletion you disagree with. (The best example being the editor who believed that Flickr photosets were not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I, for one, agree with him -- that editor was not a vandal, and neither are many of the others you have so labelled.)

In an organised campaign, some will make smaller vandalisms than others. - Xed 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
In short, the new users who voted on this page are suspect, but about the rest we can say nothing with certainty. — Adam Conover † 22:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Xed, can we possibly avoid having an edit war on the section below? You have had your say above -- I proposed this section as a way to tally which voters had a large number of edits, not as a quick summary of every attack that has been made against every voter. The admin who decides this issue will, I'm sure, read everything that everyone has written, and make their decision based on that. If we are just going to fight over this section as well, I suggest we simply delete it, as it will not help anyone. So instead, can we just keep it NPOV -- that is, just that information on which we can all agree? — Adam Conover † 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the admin will read everything. So allow them to do that. Stop removing relevant information. - Xed 16:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat your characterizations in the section below. The facts can speak for themselves. (And if fthey don't, you've compiled quite a compendium of clues in the section above) Dystopos 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I have deleted the tally. It was doing nothing but causing an edit war, and it didn't actually provide any information that wasn't already available above. (It is also against the VfD process, as it turns out.) I suggest that the annotation of specific users continue in COMMENT format -- so Xed, if you want to say something about a user, you can add a comment below their votes, and if someone else wants to refute it, they can comment below your post. That way no one will be deleting anything, only adding comments. This deletion on my part is not vandalism -- rather, it is an attempt to change the way matters are being conducted on this page to minimise endless reverting and foster real discussion. If you feel any information might have been discarded with the tally, go into the history and find it, then post it above. I think, though, that we'll all be better off without a revert war, right? Let's do this right, guys. — Adam Conover † 23:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reinstated. The only reason people wanted it removed was to remove evidence of their vandalism, to remove mention of their filepile membership, and to obfuscate the vote etc. The tally saves anyone time by letting people see immediately, rather than trawl thru the history. - Xed 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Redeleted. Xed, the problem with the tally is that there is no way to discuss what BELONGS on the tally other than via a revert war. For example, I take exception to your description of one user as a "hoax user", an accusation which you have not explained or justified. However, if I try to alter the tally, you revert it. The tally is, in essence, useless, because we are not going to be able to come to an agreement on it. Therefore, we need to enable ourselves to discuss each charge, and the tally box is preventing that. Once we all agree, we should certainly reinstate the box, but until then we cannot possibly have a stable, undisputed, tally that doesn't cause interminable revert wars. Unless you have no interest in resolving the current untenable state of affairs -- or another suggestion for how we might do so, other than that we all meekly allow you to label users in whatever way you wish -- leave the tally deleted for now. You will still get your say in the comments on votes above. — Adam Conover † 23:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Stop making it difficult for admins - Xed 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you an admin? I don't see any special markers on you or on your individual page which would indicate it? CaptainMarvel 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Redeleted again, as it remains clear the Wikipedia Guide to VfDs specifically says that tables like this should not exist ("Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process."). I'm not really sure why the removal of this is controversial, either. Jason 01:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm afraid this VfD has been so derailed by Xed's actions that no clear consensus will be reached. — Linnwood 03:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jason -- I read that guideline earlier today, but was in a rush as I made my last edit so I didn't have time to go find it. I fully admit that it was my own mistake suggesting it in the first place -- my goal was to pull the content out of the mess this page has become a little bit, but obviously that effort was misguided, and backfired to boot.
Linwood, I have that concern as well. Still, if you read over the various votes, even if you exclude all the "new users" and half of the rest of the voters Xed wants excluded for whatever reason, it's pretty clear that the voting is heavily lopsided towards Delete. Of course, "consensus" is (as defined by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators) a huge grey area, and this VfD is obviously grayer than most -- still, I have confidence that a careful admin will be able to sort through this mess without TOO much difficulty, and make a decision that isn't influenced by our or anyone else's bad behavior. — Adam Conover † 05:32, August 19, 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

[edit] West Montana Hoodlums

Outlandishly frivolous page Jeff Worthington 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Stupid, get rid of it... User:Horatio86, 11 August 2005

  • Delete, borders on a vanity page. No notability established. Gateman1997 21:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, with a "wtf" thrown in. And the pictures too. --Etacar11 00:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "wtf" just about covers it Soltak 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP it is a known school group and educates the common people on the horrors of some people (Unsigned vote by Sgt pepper 990 (talk • contribs))
  • keep If we don't keep it, who will. Think of the Children!!!

Max Williams (Unsigned vote by 151.197.219.196 (talk • contribs), first edit)

  • Keep. As a sterling example of what NOT to make into a wiki article. Plus, it made me laugh. Dunno why, possibly the "puppy eating" picture. Hooper_X
  • Comment, Just thought I'd point out that the creator of this useless page User:151.197.34.175 is vandalizing personal pages of anyone who votes "delete". Gateman1997 22:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The creator has now sockpuppet attacked users who vote delete with User:151.197.45.20.
  • Current vote appears to be 5 "Deletes" and 2 "Keeps" (one of those is an obvious sockpuppet)Gateman1997 17:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • excusea mea but the current is 4 deltes and 3 keeps
    • No, if you look closely, the first two people voted delete without typing delete plus the 3 tagged=5. There are only two "keep" votes as IP's do not get a vote per the WP:VFD rules.Gateman1997 03:07, 18 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henticles

Article is on a supposed portmanteau of hentai and tenticles [sic]. Even if it were a real word, it's a non-notable neologism. A misspelled one. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --R.Koot 20:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DS1953 22:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tentacle rape. While I have heard the term more than a few times (and arguably) it is somewhat of a neologism, redirecting it to the appropriate article will solve the problem neatly.--Mitsukai 16:11, 15 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 (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behanchod

Dicdef. Thue | talk 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- Rename to Bhenchod, can be expanded. User:Nichalp/sg 07:14, August 16, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pwnation

Content of article is "PwNation is a tournament website for the Xbox game Unreal Championship 2. PwNation was founded by Augy, who hosts tournaments regularly each month." Seems non-notable to me. 302 google hits, which, even if all are pertinent, doesn't seem like notoriety to me. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:54, 11 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

[edit] Geetha Angara

Delete. Not notable. -MicroFeet 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Tragic, but delete. This isn't a memorial. - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lucky 6.9 Tonywalton 11:58, 12 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Smokey Wambas

A "5 piece punk/emo/post hardcore band out of Holyoke, Massachusetts" with one EP released. Googling "The Smokey Wambas" returns 158 hits, mostly pertinent. Article claims that band has toured with "Jimmies Chicken Shack, Agent Orange and the Misfits," which are notable bands in their own right. As for these guys, I say... keep trying, and, hopefully, succeed, but until you do, there's no need for an article. Delete jglc | t | c 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep ... just barely ... they have released some actual recordings, and just crawl under the fence as I see it. Ben-w 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just as a comment, recall that WP:MUSIC states that a band must release "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" in order to meet guidelines. jglc | t | c 21:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment -- fair enough. The touring information, though, if accurate, might do it? They're one step up from the usual "The Goatfuckers are the kewlest band in Winnipeg and they will take over the world as soon as one of us learns a second chord and our moms let us stay out late" sort of NNBV, so I guess I was being generous. Ben-w 22:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment -- Heh. Yeah. It seems as though we're just barely on opposite sides of the fence. I guess we'll see what sort of consensus comes about. jglc | t | c 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with jglc. Not quite there yet. 70.48.133.128
  • Weak keep - needs some serious cleanup but the facts as presented make this seem like it might just barely sneak by WP:MUSIC. ESkog 23:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup. Touring with notable bands possibly qualifies them under WP:music. No allmusic.com article as yet but a Yahoo Audio Search shows some of their tracks are available for download. [29] Capitalistroadster 02:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep eventualism. Themindset 23:03, 12 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

[edit] Michael Borzumate

  • A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Soltak 22:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Pilatus 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn student vanity. --Etacar11 00:27, 12 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

[edit] Michael J. Dillon

A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable, vanity (created by User:Dillon). I don't think anyone would object if these RPI-Grand-Marshal VfDs were combined into one. If they are, this vote counts for all three current articles, and any new ones that pop up – I see that List of RPI Grand Marshals contains a redlink for Christopher Mather. In addition, Grand Marshal (RPI) ought to be merged with the list article. android79 21:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Soltak 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Pilatus 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:28, 12 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

[edit] Max Yates

A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above Soltak 22:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Pilatus 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:29, 12 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

[edit] Duke of Liempt

Unsourced, unverifiable. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax. The phrase "Duke of Liempt" generates no Google hits. None. I am not aware of any easily-accessed resource for Dutch titles of nobility (e.g. Leight Rayment's peerage pages). I and other people who work on British and European nobility welcome the addition of non-British titles, but we'd prefer that they actually exist. If anyone can submit information that verifies this page, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete See [30] for the present "Duke," who appears to live in British Columbia; the IP address used for these edits is also from BC. I suspect this is some bizarre vanity thing. Choess 21:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proven not to be hoax. Pavel Vozenilek 22:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete john k 01:39, 13 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 merged --SPUI (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States

I merged it cos it said to merge it horseboy 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • You did what now? Where did you merge it to? The last step in a proper merge is a redirect, not a deletion. android79 22:31, August 11, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and heterosexuality

Article was merged to Religion and sexual orientation horseboy 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This article should be a redirect, not a VfD. Can someone please fix it and remove this from VfD.Gateman1997 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No kidding. Horseboy, please read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. A merge does NOT involve a deletion. Speedy redirect CanadianCaesar 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've put up the redirect. Can someone close this out.Gateman1997 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would like to know why Religion and sexual orientation was redirected. Was that stuff merged, or just wiped out recklessly? Edit summary doesn't say. Horseboy, please, please, please, PLEASE read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles CanadianCaesar 23:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually it just looks like it was deleted according to the history, I don't see any merge anywhere, just a delete and the adding of an incomplete redirect. Gateman1997 00:01, 12 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buzz Burbank

Delete nn radio person. The article is more than faintly ridiculous and the website says "check back soon". -Splash 22:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, newscaster on a syndicated radio show, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And you have verified, independently of the article that he is a newscaster, yes? Like with this site [31] which says "The Don & Mike Show is a morning show in the afternoon!". Taking as Gospel the contents of a stupid article is not good research. -Splash 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, there is this. I think we can assume Kappa knows how to use Google. (This is not a vote.) android79 22:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Which uses the exact same wording as the article, funnily enough. I've debated with Kappa before about an insistence on simply believing the article, and didn't really make much headway. -Splash 22:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The "stupid article" is the Westwood One (NYSE: WON) profile of the talent for one of their syndicated shows. And here's more from WJFK. The "morning show in the afternoon" is a sort of a joke. And "Buzz Burbank" and "Don Geronimo" are probably not real names. That's radio humor for ya. Ben-w 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Can someone please tell me why this page is so bad. I didn't make anything up. He is real and the website is down because Don, of Don and Mike, recently had his wife pass in a tragic car accident...asshat! -Givemealoosey 17:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article perhaps needs some cleaning up but refers to an actual radio personality. --128.229.114.117 21:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Don and Mike. Not notible enough for his own article. --Kevin McManus 21:48, August 19, 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 no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ChaosGallantmon Crimson Mode

He is a fake Digimon. KL 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't really know. There are some google hits on this, but I cannot see if this is an "official" one or a fan creation. But KL, don't blank the page you are nominating for deletion. Let the content remain so that people can view the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As outlandish as Digimon names can get, I'm pretty sure this one's a fake. Thus, delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 18:14, 21 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 (by Meelar 2005-08-18 15:43:43)

[edit] RN BRASIL

Advertising. "RN Brazil is a producer of films,videos, events and interactive content"; gives a client list and contact details. Physchim62 22:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad for local company. A lot of google hits but most (all?) of those refer to "RN, Brasil", short for "state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil". Nabla 22:49:25, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete although it would have been nice to have this translated *before* sending it to vfd so more people could vote. <drini ☎> 00:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
See the nomination. This is better than most foreign-language VfDs. Physchim62 18:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I assure the nominator's translation and description of the rest is correct. Nabla 01:07:58, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • DeleteAdvertising, don't know why it wasn't on speedy deletion. Translating roughly: "Located in Sao Paulo, capital, RN Video is a film, video, events and interactive content producer. Its portfolio has respectful entities such as ADVB, Serasa, Votorantim Celulose e Papel, Vivo, Chevrolet and others. For more information call ... or ...". I must ad that it was badly written in Portuguese. Rfredian 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't speedy delete most adverts... Physchim62 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is just blatant advertising (in Portuguese). "Situated in São Paulo Capital[?], RN Brasil is a producer of films, videos, events, and interactive content. In its portfolio of clients we can find such respectable entities as ADVB, Serasa, Votorantin Celulose and Paper, VIVO, Chevrolet, and others. For better information, call ['phone number] / ['phone number], or [website]." (Silverhelm 02:39, 16 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

[edit] Finnish Animeunion

Generally I'm an inclusionist, but this is just silly. It's a website, which 'strives to bring forth common in real life meetings'. It has an Alexa rank of 2,102,132, and gets 385 Google hits (which is little for a website). Oh, and no pages link to it, except one redirect. Very kawaii. - ulayiti (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, wikipedia is not a web-directory. The union doesn't even have an entry in the finnish WP. feydey 23:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Websites with Alexa rankings down in the 2 million region need a really good reason to be notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 12 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

[edit] Rotundant Height Disorder

  • Tagged for speedy with "can't verify, appears to be original research" as the reason. No vote from me. Kappa 22:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No google hits, it does appear to be OR Soltak 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no google hits. What an imagination some submitors have... feydey 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm maybe we should check the rest of their contributions too... Kappa 23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Crass and insulting. Thanks, fellow editior. --AStanhope 14:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't verify as a real diagnosis. ManoaChild 03:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find 18 Google hits for the word "rotundant" on its own; nothing in Merriam-Webster or Chambers dictionaries. This might be a recognised disroder in body image perception, but I'd hazard that name is OR Tonywalton 12:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is indeed very rare. What you people fail to understand is that just because something isn't in Google doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. One of the very reasons behind us writing for the Wikipedia is to supplement the existing record with new information - not merely to create an echo chamber for what already appears in Google. Think about it. --AStanhope 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing in MedlinePlus or MedicineNet.com. I would think that a recognized disorder would show up there. --Etacar11 14:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • When did Wikipedia get to be so Ameri-Centric? Contact: Societé DHR, No 118, 3e, rue du Faubourg du Temple, 75010, Paris, France
        • It appears that you know something more about this than you're putting in the article, ASH. (For instance: what does DHR stand for?) Information about who identified the disorder, who treats it, who the Societé is... Eliot 16:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No vote. I agree very strongly about not just mirroring Google, AStanhope, but the fact that we can't even find evidence that a disorder with this name exists is near-certain proof that there's some highly important fact being left out of the article. (Maybe the name is just being poorly translated?) Just add any reference that will allow us to put the article in proper context. I will vote to keep if that shows up. Eliot 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would need more than an address in Paris for verification. --Etacar11 15:15, 12 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 ambiguous.

The stated justification for the deletion nomination is invalid. Users have no right to anonymity on Wikipedia. There is certainly not right to a degree of anonymity greater than the IP address used by the only two contributors to the article so far.

That said, the current article contains essentially no verifiable information. Some information mirrors that of the company's website but the article itself cites credibility concerns with the source. The company lists itself as a Florida corporation but shows up on no search of US companies that I can find.

Despite having only one valid "delete" vote, I am going to exercise my judgment on this one and call it as a "delete" for lack of verifiability. This decision is without prejudice against the recreation of a verifiable article on the same topic. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Integrated_Control_Systems

The creator of this article simply forgot to log in and the topic requires anonymity.

Urgent need to remove IP addresses from history pages or delete the pages "Integrated_Control_Systems, Litcfiel_Associates, IMPAC" as soon as possible.

  • Comment - is this a reasonable reason for a VfD? I honestly have no idea, so I hope someone who does will actually vote on this! Loganberry (Talk) 20:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - looks like a quarrel page to me, of very little interest anyway... but it's not correct do delete the content BEFORE the vote, so I restored the original page + the vfd alert. If anybody has any better solution... --Raistlin 12:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the article outlines why this particular business consultancy firm is notable. There are plynty of consultancies out there. Pilatus 13:39, 13 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 Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military Operation against Iran

  • Delete as patent nonsense. --Revolución (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT 1.8.3: No Speculation On Future History. The Literate Engineer 23:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as well as the above, this also qualifies as OR Soltak 23:53, 11 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 (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 18:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Impagliazzo

Delete First, the possibility for vanity exists as the article's author was an anonymous IP. In any event, while this professor is quite notable at his University, on the whole notability has not been established. I could write very similar articles about a number of professors I had in college. A line that most clearly demonstrates his lack of notability is this "Russell Impagliazzo has had a big red beard for most of professional life and is recognized by this, at least within the UCSD computer science department." If vanity isn't at work, an over-enthusiastic student is. Soltak 23:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I cleared out some of the cruftier bits. Seriously, this article had to have been submitted by an over-zealous fan, probably a student, as originally a list of his students was included. Delete unless improved in the next five days. If it is, please let me know on my talk page. --Scimitar parley 23:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — I think a Guggenheim Fellowship is prestigious enough to make him more than sufficiently notable. It does need a bit of cleanup. — RJH 18:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and see if it develops into something better. (Unsigned by 68.20.179.193)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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

[edit] Trivia HQ

Non-notable chat room. Zoe 23:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 11:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- for obvious reasons --Mysidia (talk) 17:41, 14 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 no consensus.

As several commented, this should properly be resolved through Redirects for deletion, not VfD. However, since the Manual of Style discussion is still quite active, I think it's premature to open the RfD now. I am going to close and archive this discussion. When the Manual of Style discussion reaches consensus, please determine if a redirect for deletion decision is still necessary. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Meiji Emperor

The edit history of this talk page prevents the move of Talk:Mutsuhito to follow the article itself. Please delete soonest. Arrigo 23:54, 11 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_August_11_18c7.html"