Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 12

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. Paul August ☎ 17:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nvk

Delete - vanity for a small group of gaming buddies. FreplySpang (talk) 11:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No, this is only the beginning. I will expand the article into showing the serious side of the buisness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.113.65 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-12 11:37:47 UTC.
• Delete - useless --Raistlin 11:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• This is big in Norway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.113.65 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-12 11:45:37 UTC.
• Delete. Vanity article. WMMartin 11:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article. Norboman 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. get a life UkPaolo 12:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for vanity and nonsense and POV and advertising and the like. --Several Times 15:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Several TImes said. -- DS1953 06:45, August 13, 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. Paul August ☎ 17:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slaunwhite, Steve

Delete: Seems just self-promotion or spam. No wikification. No general interest. You name it...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raistolo (talk • contribs) 2005-08-12 11:36:18 UTC.

Delete NN vanity (and he committed a homophonic word-choice error... criminal). JDoorjam 16:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete self-promotion AND spam. Allegrorondo 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless cleaned up. Might be notable but this is vanity. --Etacar11 23:59, 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. Paul August ☎ 17:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolatefoot

Unhelpful article promoting a website that serves little or know use to the community at large. Erwin Walsh 11:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: spam --Raistlin 11:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per reason above Erwin Walsh 11:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn serves only as advertising. UkPaolo 12:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Website vanity. Advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for advertising, neologism. --Several Times 15:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sjakkalle. DS1953 15:44, 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. I decline to include it in BJODADN (because it's just not funny) but won't object if someone else does so. Rossami (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Women with Large Rumps

Offensive article, with offensive title. Provides no useful content. UkPaolo 12:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Steatopygia. Known "disorder": "Steatopygia is an unusual accumulation of fat in and around the buttocks. The deposit of fat is not confined to the gluteal regions, but extends to the outside and front of the thighs, forming a thick layer reaching sometimes to the knee." --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Image is genuane Steatopygia but altered in photoshop [16] shows a non altered one. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I fixed the image btw. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. As a black woman, I am proud of my body. You think my beautiful black body is offensive? You are racist. We should celebrate diversity, not censor it. 68.97.208.123 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hahaha... Delete and transfer to BJAODN Themindset 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Transfer to BJADON. --Jpbrenna 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As above Anshu 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup offensive elements and then merge (particularly the songs) with Steatopygia. Like it or not there is a cultural element to this. :) — RJH 19:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Crap article, bad taste. Redirect to Bootylicious, or preferably something more encyclopedic about how yummy black women's bottoms are. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who on earth would search for this? Peter ^Isotalo 01:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone who is pervy for booty, of course! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Steatopygia. The fact that it is offensive should not be grounds to delete, much of the world is offensive. However, it doesn't seem to add much, what it does could be put into Steatopygia. Avalon 04:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be racist to merge. This article presents a phenomenon genetically and culturally distinct from the steatopygic Khoikhoi. To merge on the basis of a superficial similarity would be racist. This article should be retitled and developed. Eyeon 05:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So why didn't you "retitle" it when you created it? More evidence of bad faith: the author and creator of the article is here posing as a neutral and impartial voter. -- Curps 15:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The utterly unencyclopedic title is a strong indication of bad faith. -- Curps 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. --Kiand 15:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with suggested article and put current version in BJAODN. --Merovingian (t) (c) 19:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is coolness. -- This vote by User:70.92.105.107 -- Curps 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no useful content. 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC) -- This vote by User:Drini -- Curps 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment For the folks voting merge, can you clarify whether you want a redir to remain? -- Curps 20:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it quietly and without much fuss. User:Eyeon, the creator of this article, is a sockpuppet-wielding troll whose chief contributions include blessing the Wikipedia with this wonderful image. Most of his time was generally spent ruining any articles he could find that were related to his scat fetish. We're being tested again; let's not fail this time. --Ardonik.talk()^* 09:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous. Punkmorten 21:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this adds no new knowledge to Wikipedia. It would be a disservice to the readers of steatopygia, since that is clearly a disease. The social commentart is already covered under the topic buttock, another Wiki-nusance. User:kryzadmz,20:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN and merge with steatopygia. D. J. Bracey (talk) 17:11, 22 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. Paul August ☎ 17:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kalbass

Was almost tempted to speedy this, since it is hard to understand it as anything more than nonsense. Certainly not-notable. UkPaolo 12:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn whatever it is. DS1953 15:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems like neologism to me Allegrorondo 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam for a website? --Etacar11 00:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- more UrbanWiktionary.com fodder. JDoorjam 03:45, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQs message boards

Message board cruft, describing the layout of, well the message board hosted by GameFAQs. This should be redirected to GameFAQs and any useful content (if indeed there is any) merged. Dunc|☺ 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Most of this was already spun out of the GameFAQs article...the board system is one of the largest on the internet. Cruft would be subjective.The Slashdot subculture could be considered cruft in some circles. Toffile 12:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not "cruft" if the board is mentioned on sites like Fark and Something Awful with any degree of frequency. The board has a reputation that's relatively far-reaching, so I see no reason why we need to get rid of the article. imdwalrus 9:19, 12 August 2005 (EST)
• Keep, More than 3 million people have used this message board community.--Darkspym7 16:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• What Toffile said. Keep, or delete all the Slashdot cruft. One or the other. - Randwicked 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, Its a perfectly valid entry on an enormous online community. The GameFAQs message boards are very well known for being something of a world into itself.--68.233.141.149 13:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Only registered users may vote. Ashibaka (tock)

• Delete. Useless cruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Martg76 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. A notable website should be known to people outside its fanbase. Fark is well known to everyone online, and Something Awful is featured in news stories, but the GameFAQs boards are not notable for anything. It is indeed a "world into itself" that has no relevance to the outside world. Any notable information about the forums should be merged back into the main GameFAQs article. Ashibaka (tock) 16:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Either way, there it still impacted more people than other people/events that have Wikipedia articles.Darkspym7 16:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's something to go on. Please describe how the GameFAQs forums have impacted the lives of their members. This also might be a good thing to include in the article itself. Ashibaka (tock) 16:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that the GameFAQs forums are notable in their infamy and their place in the culture of video game fandom. On the other hand, they're inextricably linked to GameFAQs, so I'm voting merge with GameFAQs.

• Keep, notable within its fanbase. Kappa 16:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I am relatively new and don't know all the vagarities of the rules, but is "notable within its fanbase" a valid argument? I know this is part of a larger debate on whether every episode of every TV show is worthy of an article, and even whether every public school and small town mayor should have a page...but isn't "notable within its fanbase" sort of the opposite of "encyclopedic"?
  • How is it not encylopedic? It would fit perfectly into an encyclopedia of GameFaQs. Kappa 22:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remerge, for whatever reason this article has been split off and merged a number of times. Whatever notability this may have should be remerged with GameFAQs. K1Bond007 17:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete or merge back. Take someone notable, say, Elizabeth II of England, her right leg would not on its own be notable or suitable for an article, although I am sure one could amass some information about it. Why split off the message boards from the main article? They are its "right leg". --Tim Pope 19:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If Elizabeth II of England of England's page was too long, it would have to be split up, probably in a more sensible way than by body part. Kappa 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a useful little reference, especially for people who have questions about the board. I know I've used this page to link to on MBH if I don't feel like answering n00bs' questions. - the0nemanband
• Keep or Re-Merge with GameFAQs This is a good collection of information about a site that is widely used. Wikipedia was one of the resources I used to familiarize myself with the site when I first joined. I would argue that GameFAQs is the most prominent gaming website on the web. The message boards themselves have hundreds of thousands of active users; this entry is as notable as other of the miscellany contained in the Wikipedia. This page should, however be re-merged with the entry for GameFAQs. Mrbort 21:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they're rather large forums and have spawned more than a few Internet memes. I'd say they merit their own article. Crovax 23:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Toffile and Randwicked. Nifboy 23:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a notable site, but giving the forums their own article is just nuts. Nandesuka 23:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The forums are pretty notable and may in fact deserve their own article. But not this one. Marblespire 01:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that the article should have a different name, or just that it should be improved? Both of those are easy to do, and would only be obstructed by deletion. Factitious 23:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• keep The audience reach of the boards alone is astounding. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable. Absolutely no disadvantages in keeping this information on Wikipedia. Factitious 23:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should be covered in the website article. Purely a result of video game fan over-representation. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These boards are much more than trivial video game discussion. Too much info to merge (similar to the Something Awful Forums page). ArcTheLad 02:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect and cull excess. -Sean Curtin 06:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and edit mercilessly. GameFAQs is a long article, not much under 32K; merger will produce an excessive article. Septentrionalis 13:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There was no need to bring this to VfD to perform a merge, much less to suggest one. A merge does not affect the edit history. If there was need to attract wider opinion to persuade the regular editors, that's what surveys are for. Septentrionalis 13:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. -- A Link to the Past 19:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I found the information on this page useful when trying to decipher a GameFAQs "meme" - Stoph 00:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. This is useful information for anyone searching for information on GameFAQs' board system and in its present state is to big to be merged with the main GameFAQs article. If GameFAQs is allowed an entry, then its boards (as a major feature) need to be explained as well. I think (ignoring some vandalism...) this entry does a decent job of introducing the boards and gives a nonuser of the system a decent understanding of what it is like. However, much of the information could be stripped out if necissary to maintain an elitist standard for the encyclopedia... with the rest merged with the main GameFAQs article (which should then be marked for a significant cleanup to better integrate all the data.) Simply deleting it outright would be a disservice. - Mr1bh 04:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with GameFAQs. The site is notable; the forums are not. The details to the forums should already be self-contained within their own community. --Madchester 05:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep' - If Something Awful boards have their own separate page, then GameFAQs should as well.
• "The details to the forums should already be self-contained within their own community" Which does nothing for people outside the community such as the typical users of Wikipedia. True, these forums are not notable enough to deserve a page in their own right. However, Wikipedia makes provision for secondary pages to be made for content that does not fit within the main article. As it is right now, the GameFAQs forum entry is to large to merge with the GameFAQs article, and the GameFAQs article itself is not written well enough to cleanly facilitate a merge. Something needs to be mentioned about the forums as they are a major part of GameFAQs. Tt seems there are two issues at hand 1) The existance of a second article for the forums and 2) what should be mentioned about them. I suggest first editing the current page to the Wikipedia community's standards, and then considering whether or not the data will easily merge with the main article.Mr1bh 22:24, 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 speedy-deleted on 14 Aug. Closing the discussion.

[edit] Paleoweltschmerz

An unverifiable, non-notable [17] tinfoilhat theory, that no-one apparently believes. Delete, unless we're going to create articles fo this lot too [18] --Doc (?) 12:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC) (P.S. the 'links' on this page don't vertify anything) Doc (?)

• Delete. Maybe Speedy, because this is pretty close to patent nonsense. This isn't even pseudoscience. It's just someone's idea of a joke. ManoaChild 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at very minimum rewrite to warn the user this is a nonscientific theory --Raistlin 13:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's funny because http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/Dino90.html records 'paleoweltschmerz' as a theory concerning a mental disorder, put forwards to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. You can find it by searching on the word 'paleoweltschmerz'. You may also like to note that the page says the theory was put forward (although it does not say by whom) as a deliberate joke, which is (as far as I'm concerned) the only unverifiable part of it. Presumably, the Earth Sciences department of Bristol University did not invent it.

As for 'tinfoil hat theories that no-one apparently believes', I don't think that is a reasonable comment, let alone a legitimate reason for deletion. If it is a legit reason for deletion, Wikipedia could be getting a lot thinner.

Unusual/exotic theory; historical footnote; proposed solution to natural history phenomenon; if the theory was intended as a joke by its inventor (which I have been unable to ascertain) certainly of minor historical note (cf 'jackalope').

Also: my Spanish is poor, but this page [19] seems to relate that the 'theory' of paleoweltschmerz was created by Schopenhauer.

• Keep. Mark as stub. (Assuming that, as the article's originator, I'm allowed to vote on this).

81.5.185.18 13:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now, I'm willing to wait and see if this article develops into something. Maybe merge it into an article on unusual theories about the extinction of dinosaurs (but come up with a better title for it!). If nothing has improved in a month or so then by all means renominate it. Thryduulf 13:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While I'm about it, I'd like it noted that the first time I submitted this article, it was summarily deleted without notification. Are Wikipedians always so openminded and friendly? 81.5.185.18 14:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actualy it wasn't deleted, you submitted an article called Paleoweltschemerz (note the extra 'e') and this still exists, although I've now redirected it to the correct title. Thryduulf 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That'll larn me. [sigh] ;¬) 81.5.185.18 15:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand as possible. But monitor as per Thryduulf. JDoorjam 16:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This theory gets only 8 hits on Google, which seems to me to be extremely non-notable. The first hit is actually an essay on humorous reasons for the extinction of the dinosaurs. These two facts combined made me suspect that the article was created as a hoax. If it was seriously intended, I apologize. Regardless, my opinion on whether the article is worth keeping still stands. Notability not established, though speedy deletion is probably not warranted. ManoaChild 19:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A theory which is little-known to Google, a theory which the page itself admits has few if any adherents, a theory that is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lord Bob 19:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Hold pending verification via Lovondatr. -EDM 20:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Zoe 21:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Martg76 21:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke, nonsense. --Etacar11 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Article admits "has few if any adherents" so it's made up. -Splash 00:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. How did this end up on VFD?
• Delete. But if everyone agrees that I can become the ratified editor-admin of this article, keep. This is seriously amusing! :-D / Peter ^Isotalo 01:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. It was clearly patent nonsense. →Raul654 01:47, August 14, 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 12:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The GNU Organisation

Nomination by Erwin Walsh completed by me (no vote) --Doc (?) 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree, rubbish --Raistlin 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Irrelevant. A school gang. --Norboman 12:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• As the article itself tells us, this is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 13:05:26, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
• Delete. Jaxl | talk 14:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Irrelevant. Of no valid use on this web site at least dok 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Several Times 15:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and somebody take out the Anglican Church Grammar School as the article is half in-jokes, half libel, and a third half refers right back to the "GNU". JDoorjam 16:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)* ok, cleaned it up a bit. JDoorjam 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete ; nonsense. 62.253.96.44 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity or nonsense. Should this be redirected to Free Software Foundation? ManoaChild 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete: nonsense --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• I took the initiative and speedied the article. -- Longhair | Talk 12:59, 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 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 Dunno, but it isn't delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hits of sunshine

Merge or Delete: Not large enough to really be an article of its own, and it'd be great in LSD or Sonic Youth, but it probably won't grow enough to be larger than a stub: it's possible, but unlikely. Karmafist 13:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• If you want an article merged, just do the merge. Deletion is not involved at any stage of the process. Uncle G 13:33:30, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sonic Youth. This didn't really need a VfD, you can do redirs yourself. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will. Karmafist 16:38, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians

Silly association page. Wikipedia does not benefit, and page appears to be troll bait an unintentional troll magnet Bletch 13:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree without reservation. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete. I don't believe it is troll bait, but the original idea was clearly trolling. Extra star for those defending wiki integrity, SqueakBox 13:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to serve no purpose other than to promote POV fighting. Friday (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Troll magnet. Pretty funny actually. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not an article (This article is being considered for deletion..), I'm not sure it can be VfD, it's community space. Gee, image the chaos if people started VfD each others organizational pages just because they think "Wikipedia does not benefit". Talk about troll bait! Stbalbach 14:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia: namespace pages can certainly be listed on VFD. There has to be a mechanism to allow them to be deleted - the WP: namespace is not a free-for-all. sjorford →•← 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This may just me, but in my opinion all of the WP: namespace pages that are little more than "List of XYZ Wikipedians" should be deleted. Pages in that namespace should be more than simple signup sheets. --Bletch 15:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Has not one single sensible entry. While the original idea may have been noble, it's now a silly page. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems amusing and harmless. Sdedeo 15:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is also fun (when it doesnt hurt anyone). Stbalbach 16:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Sdedeo is incorrect. It is very amusing, and extremely harmless. 'Keep'Themindset 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment IMO Cognition wanted a society for those who beleived drugs, and esp cannabis, are wrong. What with him throwing out most of the members here and the various revert wars he and I have had over the page I don't think this page has been all fun. Actualy there has been one powerful entry, by freakofnurture, that for me says it all; ie that the law works in stopping people using marijuana, SqueakBox 16:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no reason why not. Simply because a page is troll-bait doesn't mean that's its intent, nor its only purpose. jglc | t | c 16:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Does this mean that it's fair game to start a Wikipedians on drugs page? Will admins have to start issuing WUI citations? JDoorjam 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in the spirit of rule number one of m:Wikistress -Satori 17:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
• Delete, are you kidding me? K1Bond007 17:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Serves no useful purpose. -Willmcw 20:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice idea, to remove everything that's funny and frivolous from wikipedia would be sad. This list seems no more of a problem than a list of Hawaiian Wikipedians. Don't see why one is a problem and the other not. Coqsportif 20:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh good Lord! Pointless, moralising, POV, ill-informed and trollbait. Though feel free to list me on Wikipedia:List of drug-using Wikipedians, if anyone can be bothered to create it. (And yes, I'd support that list being deleted too, if it does get created.) — OwenBlacker 21:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, funny, but not useful. feydey 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and other dubious "lists of Wikipedians". No value for Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete disgusting self-indulgent vanity lists of Wikipedians. Putting Wikipedia: before the title doesn't diminish anything. -Splash 00:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless and in good humor, you're just all jealous I'm free-drug and you're not. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to WP:BJAODN. :D -Hmib 01:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trollbait. (I'd say move stuff to WP:BJAODN, but Tony Sidaway would come up with some reason why that actually means "keep", and I don't want that. --Calton | Talk 01:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Curious, but I want proof that all the people on list can be shown to be free off all drugs, including low cost pescription drugs from Canada. Sabine's Sunbird 01:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You have to admit this is funny. Have some fun in life. Brownman40 03:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless we can delete all of these lists. -- Visviva 08:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or get rid of all lists, as the vote above. The initial asperations of this were hardly any worse than Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Green users (except that most would be more liable to support the latter), and the fact that it has descended in to a little harmless fun is hardly a reason to delete. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 11:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not everything in the Wikipedia: namespace needs to be serious. Thryduulf 12:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's allow for a bit of fun with allowing users to categorize themselves into things like this. Harmless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete and utter troll bait. "Hang drug users from a tree.." (paraphrased).. Come on. Make a page that lists the stats on use of drugs by nation, race, income, religion, age, type of drug, etc.. not this garbage Wijiwang 00:17, 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 REDIRECT to List of spells in Harry Potter. -Splash 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episkey

Non-notable sub-trivia from Harry Potter. Nothing links here. GabrielF 13:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's already in List of spells in Harry Potter. Jaxl | talk 14:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. (I can't believe I forgot that option!) Jaxl | talk 22:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jaxl. --bainer (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. That way if for some reason someone wants to look it up, they'll get sent to a page with it on it, instead of creating this one again. --Icelight 21:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. Per Icelight. feydey 21:57, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African-Americans in China

Really just a note that Paul Robeson and some other people went to China. Can't see it has much potential as an article. JW 14:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and cross-reference to Chinese-Americans in Africa. What is with these people?? Allegrorondo 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. --Etacar11 00:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless and unencyclopedic stub. --Calton | Talk 01:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What if I create an article whites in America? Brownman40 00:16, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Codebeamer

Pure advertising, nothing more. Several Times 14:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Using the phrase "our customers" is a dead giveaway. --bainer (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but it is also copyvio. I am too lazy right now to go through the steps, but [20] is the reference. In general, copyvio is the best way to go for these things. 90% of adverts on wiki are cut and paste jobs, and you can use "copyright judo" on them.Sdedeo 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Aha, I'll copyvio it now. Thanks for the ref. --Several Times 15:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. DS1953 15:40, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of a cappella songs

Delete this page, as it is completely impossible to even come close to maintaining. There are literally thousands of a cappella groups in the United States alone, and if this list also extends to a cappella covers, as it appears to do, and not just original works, the volume of songs listable here spikes exponentially. JDoorjam 14:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep, why shouldn't users be able to find examples of a cappella songs in wikipedia? Kappa 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment ANY song can be sung a capella. A listing of "famous a capella recordings" might be worthwile, but under the "a capella" article. Delete Allegrorondo 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are, BTW, several lists of a cappella groups —Wahoofive (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So why shouldn't users be able to find them by typing in "List of a cappella songs"? Kappa 16:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The group I was in during college had over 400 songs in its active or inactive repertoire all on its own. Conservatively, there are tens of thousands of a cappella arrangements out there. It's a huge volume of information that simply isn't that useful, and is completely impossible to maintain. JDoorjam 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, firstly, because any song could be sung a cappella. Delete per Wahoofive and WP:NOT. -Satori 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT per Wahoofive. Proto t c 22:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Theoretically massive and unmaintainable. tregoweth 22:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The list of songs that cannot be sung a cappella is probably a shorter and more tractable list - not that I'm suggesting that someone create that list. ManoaChild 23:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was trying to think of a song that cannot be sung acapella, and I can't. Sdedeo 06:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Any song in which vocal and non-vocal sections alternate would sound pretty strange when sung a cappella. That sometimes happens in musical theater, when action and dialog (sung) are mixed in a single song; try most musicals by Andrew Lloyd Webber. In some heavy metal, the singing sections exist mostly to join the instrumental sections, try Smoke on the Water or Stairway to Heaven. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would probably sound quite odd. ManoaChild 12:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to its proper title, List of a cappella covers. Then Delete. (Now, a list of famous original a cappella songs--"For The Longest Time," "In the Still of the Night," "Sukiyaki"--is worth making. But this ain't it.) Marblespire 01:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Wahoofive. --Nandesuka 05:14, 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 delete. Woohookitty 06:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darkplush

non-notable ... webcomic? someone's online avatar? article doesn't make it clear. ~80 Google hits, none of which clear things up. - Randwicked 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn fan comic for Supermegatopia and personal character(?). If there is a current running version of the comic outside of SMT, I can't find it. Since SMT has many other fan and associated comics, I can't see a reason to profile this one specifically, or this character Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 17:09, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flair Utd. F.C.

Vanity - just some 5-a side football team, of which there are millions. Nothing particularly notable about them as far as I can see. sjorford →•← 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent entry. I've been trying to find information on Flair for some considerable time. They're well known around the East London area. — (Unsigned comment by 217.43.11.192; user's 1st edit.)
  • What?! Ashibaka (tock) 16:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've restored sjorford's original nomination, which was removed when 217.43.11.192 added his/her comment, possibly inadvertantly. android79 16:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability, possible vanity. android79 16:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Sjorford. -D. Wu 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,. clearly an advertisment — (Zbzdhbafr forgot to sign.)
• delete vanity --Tim Pope 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it! The thing that makes Wikipedia better than any other encyclopædia is that it contains entries that may be only interesting to a smaller population. The entry is factual and non-slanderous. By voting for removal of entries like this you are removing the whole essence of Wikipedia. Every 5-a side football team should have their own Wikipedia page, thus helping to complete vast information database that we are working for. Vanity? I would have to disagree. The entries that we should be deleting are the ones that are clearly fictitious, not the ones that are just less interesting to the general populace. -Martin Butt 19:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC) — (MartinButt's 1st edit.)
• Delete non-notable as per Sjorford. Qwghlm 13:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - let's have all clubs affiliated to the FA Jooler 07:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously? That's tens of thousands of outdoor 11-a-side clubs, even before you get to indoor teams like this one.. sjorford →•← 14:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? Like MartinButt said, the essence of Wikipedia is compiling this wonderfully vast source of knowledge and information. So where is the sense in rejecting a particular genre of entry just because it has a large number of constituents? Surely opening Wikipedia up to the world of amateur football (as an example) can only be of benefit to the knowledge-seeking populace? Or put another way, what harm/detriment can come from accepting such entries? None. It is simply another step towards making Wikipedia the greatest source of information this world has ever experienced. 7killer7 00:25, 22 August 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MysteryVisits.com

Advertisement for non-notable website Haakon 15:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn web site. DS1953 15:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn spamvert. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam/ad. And it redirects to a geocities site. --Etacar11 00:17, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbrekkene

Stub about a Norwegian surname. Should probably be speediable, but it seems it isn't. The article mentions the name comes from some Norwegian town or something, but a google search didn't get me any results in English, and my Norwegian is sub-par, to say the least. -R. fiend 15:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless there is a common variant with an existing article/disambig to which it can be redirected, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eclipsed 19:57, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Color or Country

Idiosyncratic nontopic, no substantial info. Syrthiss 15:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's a joke page. -D. Wu 16:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a joke. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with its cousin Rock Scissors as well. Allegrorondo 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn joke, something they made up at camp, presumably. --Etacar11 17:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)\
• I laughed. BJAODN, please. --Several Times 17:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's more widespread than the article made it out to be. It's known (and played) in at least one other summer math program and several high schools, and has been around for several years. This article would not have been abandoned - I for one was planning to make additions to the page, which in my opinion would have made it less of a nontopic without substantial information. Sho 22:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Color or Country is a game I have known for two years, and I assume that it has been around for several years before that. Its lack of a clear way to force someone to lose makes it as much a joke as an argument about politics. It is sufficiently widespread for me to have met several people who have already heard of it, and it is certainly not just limited to Canada/USA MathCamp. Yasha 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly retarded and unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen people playing the game. That's verification. Factitious 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen bigfoot. That's verification that bigfoot exists. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If you had actually seen Bigfoot, yes. I think we can trust that the multiple Wikipedians on this page who have direct experience with the game are not malicious liars. Factitious 01:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Something just occurred to me. I posted a description of the game as I remember it without having read the article, and it then turned out that I had correctly identified it. So even if you aren't willing to trust me to be honest on principle, it can be demonstrated that I wasn't lying about it being an actual game. Factitious 01:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• It looks like somebody already deleted the article out of process. If it described a game in which players take turns naming colors, and lose if they name a country, then it's a real thing, and we should keep it. I learned about the game three years ago, and have played it with several groups of people. In any case, the article should be undeleted immediately, so that we can deal with it properly. Factitious 01:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is the game that was described. Sho Uemura 01:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is about a real game, popular enough that I have met people playing it on different continents. It is not a joke any more than an article about chess is a joke. ThanksForTheFish 01:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Unable to tell. This page needs to be undeleted (after being incorrectly speedied) before it can be deleted through normal channels. Telso 02:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. With major rewrite (by me, but still), article now contains much more information, presented in a much more organized and coherent manner. Although the notability test may fail on google (even with hits at everything2 and mathcamp), this does not necessarily imply lack of notability, as other users have shown. Telso 08:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Everything2 is sort of half-blog, half-wiki. Anyone can create any article with any phrase as a topic, including May I suggest not getting married in West Virginia? and The British get freaked out by American nonchalance regarding capital punishment. So the existence of an Everything2 article on a topic doesn't imply notability in any meaningful way. And of course Mathcamp.org knows about it if they invented it. However, the rest of the world does not seem to have taken any note of this game. -- Curps 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • So you've now shown Color or Country fails the notability test on Google. But I admitted that. The point is that just because something doesn't exist on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Google is NOT a deity). A number of Wikipedians from a number of different regions and schools in North America have heard of this game, and this is just the Wikipedians who noticed the article on VfD. With all the ones who missed it and all the non-Wikipedians who've heard of it, I think this easily implies passing the notability test (which isn't policy anyway). In fact, neither is the importance test (which it probably passes as well). The only policies that apply are verifibility, which this passes considering how many people agree this is verifiable, and no original research, which this is not, again because many users agree this isn't isolated. Do I really need to search for less verifiable things on Wikipedia to handwaive my point, just like you did when you searched for inane things on everything2 to handwaive your (and my!) point? I may be a deletionist at heart, but this constant nitpicking is reminding me why I stopped watching VfD. Telso 18:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. There are a bunch of people voting on this page, some of whom never went to mathcamp, who have heard of this game. I learned for this game back when I was in college at MIT six years ago. I didn't know what Mathcamp was and I didn't know anyone who had gone to Mathcamp. So it certaintly isn't a phenomenon restricted to Mathcamp. Do you seriously think we are all high school students enjoying our little joke? You seem to be attacking this with a vehemence usually reserved for pranksters and vandals. Cmouse 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think you guys are pranksters, and if the page is kept I'll just shrug. But it really bothers me that there seem to be substantially zero webpages about it (and by contrast the equally silly game Mornington Crescent has nearly a thousand Google hits). People create webpages about almost anything at the drop of a hat... I've researched my share of highly obscure topics. It's all the more anomalous because it's a geek/nerd type topic, which are normally heavily over-represented on the Internet (a million pages for the Star Wars kid and only a handful on, say, ancient Persian poetry). It's a mystery I'd really like to clear up. -- Curps 19:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Mornington Crescent is connected to a popular radio show. There are no pages dedicated to Mornington Crescent; all or most of the pages found by searching for Mornington Crescent are pages about the radio show, with Mornington Crescent a subtopic. Color or Country doesn't get on the Internet as much because it doesn't have that connection. Also, most people learn Color or Country by word-of-mouth, and so it tends to spread within groups that have ways to communicate other than web sites. Sho Uemura 23:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I too have met several people who know of this game, none of whom have ties to Canada/USA MathCamp, proving that it is not limited to that camp. This page should not be deleted. Myq 05:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. (I saw the article earlier before it was speedied.) android79 04:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It sounds just a little too absurd: a game that neither side can lose except on purpose. Who plays this and why? How about a game where you have to say a word, any word, and as long as you don't say the word "Wikipedia" nobody ever loses. Why on Earth would you play such a game? Is it a test of endurance, just to see who gives up first? Some major detail seems to be missing here. Or is the article just written badly and fails to explain properly? -- Curps 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The way people lose is generally by getting carried away, for example starting naming continents, whereupon someone says "Australia" and loses. platypeanArchcow 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So Europe and Asia and North America are considered to be colors? Do people play this game sober? -- Curps 06:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC
      • Usually, yes. Sleep deprivation works sufficiently well. platypeanArchcow 06:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It gets zero (or one) Google hits. Several users here are saying they've heard of it, yet the most common test for noteworthiness comes up empty. See my comment below for the Google search link. -- Curps 06:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
          • We've verified its existence, yet the most common test for noteworthiness fails us. Hmm, what could that mean? Perhaps we shouldn't be relying solely on a popular search engine? Wow, what a shock! Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I once saw somebody accidentally lose the game by saying "Spain." He was mocked thoroughly. Also, note that saying things that aren't colors or countries is allowed, so saying "Europe" has no effect on the status of the game. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you ever argued over politics? Neither side can lose except on purpose. Why on Earth would you do such a thing? Is it a test of endurance, just to see who gives up first? The reason Color or Country is called a game is because it is for fun, not because it is some measure of skill. As a conventional game, Color or Country sounds rather silly: you can say "blue" each turn and not lose. However, one should not judge Color or Country as a game, but judge it is a phenomenon, a pastime, or an odd form of conversation. The fact that Curps asks why people would play this game, and the fact that many people do play it, should make it an interesting enough phenomenon to keep as an article. Yasha 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as it was submitted to VFD was rather garbagey, but I removed most of the Mathcamp-specific stuff and cleaned up the wording. As long as the article doesn't imply that Mathcamp is the only venue for the game (which I thought it was before this debate surfaced) it is a fine little stub. platypeanArchcow 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a joke. I've run into it in three seperate places at this point - one of which was MIT. I've heard of this game years before I had heard of mathcamp. Cmouse 06:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: at first, "color or country" seems unGooglable because it brings up a lot of human rights type pages. But if you do a Google search excluding pages with the words "race", "gender", "creed", "skin", you get about 69 hits, NONE of which are about this game! (Well maybe one reference in passing, in a cached version of an online forum: [21]) Even if this is for real, it simply isn't notable. At all. -- Curps 06:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Google doesn't appear to return all of the hits for this game. Here's one that Google doesn't find - [22] - and I'm sure there are many more. Thanks for the fish! 16:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One more: [23] Sho Uemura 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • [24] The first five hits concern the game Colour or Country. Looking through the other results, one can see a few relating to the game. True patent nonsense is saying that there are no Google hits for the game. Yasha 19:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • First five? How do you count five? I see only two relevant sites when I click on your Google query link: a couple of pages from mathcamp.org (which use the Canadian spelling "colour", so they were missed by the Google query I posted), plus the cached chiefdelphi.com/forums link I already posted. -- Curps 21:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm...the results seem to have changed slightly. Linking to a Google page was a mistake on my part. Sorry. Anyways, the point is that there are several pages relating to the game high up on the list of hits, and I think that still stands. Yasha 18:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The now-defunct MOP Literature Page has documentation of it going back to 1997 (link at archive.org. One reason why it may be hard to google is that, being a folk game, there may not be a universally accepted name. ("Color Country Game" gets four hits in a google search, although all of them are associated with the Mathematical Olympiad Program, which I don't think has yet been mentioned as one of the number of math camps that foster this game. 69.204.162.12 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems the main argument for deletion is that the game is stupid. It is openly acknowledged that the game is stupid, and this has nothing to do with the worthiness of the article. Wikipedia has an extensive article on Mornington Crescent, which is essentially the inverse of this game. RSpeer 06:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search for "Mornington Crescent" + "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" gets 960 hits. Arguably, no matter how silly the game, there is a noteworthy social phenomenon associated with the "Mornington Crescent" game... at least noteworthy enough that people have bothered to make webpages about it. "Color or country" doesn't have any comparable noteworthiness: it gets zero Google hits. -- Curps 06:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC) / 18:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Only because you excluded too many pages. Thanks for the fish! 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Very unlikely. The excluded pages were all human rights type pages ("without regard to race, creed, color, or country of origin") which would not mention the game. If you dispute this result, you need to suggest a different Google query and post a link and results for it. -- Curps 18:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Your claim was that it is not notable because of the Google search that you posted. Several examples have already proved that your Google query doesn't find all or most of the results, so the game must be given the benefit of the doubt unless you have other proof that all of us are lying about it. Thanks for the fish! 17:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • This is true of any Google query (Google doesn't find all the results)... Google doesn't index every single web page in existence. Nevertheless it is a useful test of relative notability (compared to other queries, since all queries will be affected). -- Curps 14:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
            • My point is that you don't weed out "race", "creed", etc. from other queries, making your Google query worthless. Thanks for the fish! 16:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
              • You don't actually believe what you just wrote, which means you are not arguing in good faith. -- Curps 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is not notable enough of it's own entry. It could probably be consolidated into another entry. Zoop 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Such as? It doesn't have any direct connections to any specific games or groups. Sho Uemura 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -Splash 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unsubstantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:49, 13 August 2005
  • There are many comments here substantiating it. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while it may exist, there's no verifiable evidence it's played by any more people than the Glengarry Glen Ross drinking game I invented. -21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC) This vote was by User:R. fiend ([25]) -- Curps 19:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • that's a good point. If you add a page for your drinking game and get 8 or 9 of your friends to come on the vfd page vouching for it, it would meet the standard that we're currently setting here. This of course begs the eternal question "how do we define notable?" If your drinking game became popular in your apartment building and 75 people played it, does that make it a "social phenomenon?" I am not a proponent of the google test mostly because of the insanely high false positive rate, but if something scores a big zilch, that's really saying something. Apollo58 23:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What we have here is a bit different from "8 or 9 friends." We have various people who don't know each other, but who have independently participated in the game, in a variety of unrelated locations. As I've said before, we have verified the existence of this game. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • How many people play that? I've personally seen about thirty people play this game, though not at the same time. Please sign your votes, by the way. Factitious 22:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I've never actually participated in a game, I've heard it referenced by multiple unrelated social groups in real life. The fact that it is arguably an incredibly dumb game does not make it any less a real social phenomenon. --Ambyr 22:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I have scoured my address book for geeky friends who went to math camps around the country, as well as asked numerous acquaintances at MIT, and no one reports ever hearing of the game. I would argue that it is known only to a very, very small and insular social circle and probably treated as a joke even there, and hardly qualifies as a "social phenomenon." I played a bizarre card game in summer camp that some of my friends made up that was quite popular and if you looked really hard you could probably find 100 people with a dim recollection of it, but that doesn't make it a social phenomenon.Apollo58 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a duplicate vote. RSpeer 04:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, it wasn't. I have edited the original confusing layout earlier in the page to make this clearer. -- Curps 19:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know most of the people here who know Color or Country (e.g. some are ten years older than me). That would seem to show that it's not restricted to an insular social circle. Scattered, yes, but scatteredness is not a reason for deletion in the way that insularity is. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I first encountered this game at the PROMYS program, and later at my high school, and later at several other programs. Arguments that the game is stupid are irrelevant, since the discussion regards the worthiness of the article, not of the game. The fact that people would play such a game at all is fairly surprising and interesting information. While this game is confined to a small culture, this culture consists of much more than Mathcampers. It tends to spread through various programs such as Mathcamp, CTY, Ross, PROMYS, MOSP, the U.S. Physics Team training camp, Clay Research Academy, and many others. However, it is not confined to those programs. It is fairly well known to nerds in many high schools who did not go to any of these programs. MathNerd 03:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At least something useful is coming from this VfD. I imagine that whoever originally posted the article, along with Rock Scissors which pretty much is non-notable, thought it was an isolated Mathcamp phenomenon. As a result of this discussion, various people have realized that their social group did not invent Colour or Country, and a lot of the history of a difficult-to-trace phenomenon has been traced. I guess VfD does generate some light along with its heat every once in a while. RSpeer 04:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Mornington Crescent - er - Keep. David | Talk 19:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wish people would stop with the 'no google no keep' argument, would make Bob Marley cry. As for the game itself, seems another varient on the confuse-people-who-don't-know-the-rules sort a la Scissors rather than a competitive sport. --zippedmartin 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Except that there are no secret rules to this: new players are told that you can name any color, you can repeat colors, etc. It's a competitive sport in the sense that some people consistently win (and for some reason, take pride in doing so). Thanks for the fish! 20:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't the point that even when you tell them, it's still confusing? I dunno, I'm confused. --zippedmartin 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe for some people. I play because I enjoy the game in and of itself. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: On second thought, merging all the 'stupid games' into one article and redirecting might be satisfactory to everyone. MathNerd 00:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't look forward to seeing arguments about which games are stupid, though. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. A new type of vandalism: kids moving their least favorite trading card games into the stupid games article. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Another comment - I want to further differentiate this from Mao and Mornington Crescent, because in those games you can actually win. This game has no purpose other than to confuse newcomers, which is fine, but then it doesn't move beyond that. One can only lose, and if the newcomer isn't an idiot s/he will probably not lose. In mornington crescent, a quick newcomer can win in one move and the game ends. If the newcomer here passes the test, the game immediately becomes unfunny. Not that this has bearing on delete/keep, just saying.
  • Another difference is that Mao and Mornington Crescent have hidden rules. Factitious 05:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Game might be a better comparison than those two, altho it isn't quite the same. But it appears to have similar difficulties with winning/losing, and doesn't have hidden rules. --Mairi 05:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Your claim that nobody wins the game when no newcomers are involved is untrue, as shown by actual gameplay. Please sign your comments, by the way. RSpeer 05:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Explain how one wins this game. -Apollo58 00:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Blind, stupid persistence. Of course, you've got to be imaginative as well or the spectators boo you. I've played and won 4-hour games, but I've also had much shorter games with experienced players. There's an art to losing, and usually a player will lose just for fun. Sho Uemura 02:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.  Grue  13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kine 05:21, 22 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. Paul August ☎ 18:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KN300 Assault Rifle

As far as I can tell, the "KN300 Assault Rifle" does not exist. The original article was signed "Article by Napster KN." Combined with a suspicious lack of factual information about the manufacturer or history, I am convinced that this weapon is a work of fiction. I've looked through all the edits of the page and they have only been to wikify, with no expansion or contextual editing that suggests anybody else has a knowledge of the weapon.

Searching for "KN300 Assault Rifle" through Google returns only Wikipedia text, and a search for "KN300" by itself returns pages about a crane, a pocket knife, a cell phone, a cafe, and a country club. "Napster KN" also returns no specific hits. I'm therefore nominating this article for deletion under WP:NOR. -D. Wu 16:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

the KN300 Assualt Rifle exists, [[26]]

• Delete as a hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. JDoorjam 20:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete might be super-sweet, but not real. Rkevins82 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete does exist, check out the link. Another link [27]] This Article May Be copyrighted by the KN300 exists.
  • No, that appears to be a wiki mirror, or copy of the wikipedia article. Notice how it says wikify at the top of the text. --Etacar11 19:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like the XM8 (Unsigned vote by 216.170.144.91 (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. Paul August ☎ 18:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tafuc

Article claims "Tafuc are a famous Irish band which has been creating music for over 40 years," and that "Tom Kelly" is the founding member. Googling "Tafuc" returns 56 hits, none of which seem pertinent. Googling "Hydrogen festival," the supposed 41-day-long music festival that the band helped form, returns no pertinent hits. Delete (or even speedy for patent nonsense). jglc | t | c 16:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not verifiable. -Satori 17:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Here's a "fanclub" page: [28]. I'll say nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as likely college in-joke, boards.ie injoke, p45.net injoke, or similar. --Kiand 17:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax. - Pete C ^✍ 18:32, 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. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sitdiary

• Delete Seems non-notable, but i'll change my vote if this can be disproven. Karmafist 16:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and also seems to be a troll magnet. jglc | t | c 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• discussion page blanked at this point by user:Troublescoot
• Delete nn website. Karmafist 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a second vote, added while the page was blanked.
• discussion page again blanked, this time by anon user:69.228.25.132

This page has been vandalized by a blank IP.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Paul August ☎ 20:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nabrun leids

Looks like Star Wars fancruft or else nonsense. AlbertR 16:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or banish to List of minor Star Wars characters Allegrorondo 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as one of the lesser minions of Darth Cruft. NN. JDoorjam 21:40, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthias Rath Museum

• Delete. I found an article about this "museum" in The Stanford Daily and it sounds like it's being run out of a dorm room and it's mostly a joke. It's certainly not sponsored by the university. --Howcheng 15:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn museum vanity. :) --Etacar11 00:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I read the same article, it's a well meaning collection of artifacts, not a museum, besides it's graduation time and they'll have to move out. Rx StrangeLove 14:14, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 21:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohmed Hussien El Chimy

• Delete. NN vanity bio. Google gets 6 hits, only one which isn't a Wikimirror, and it's his own web page. --Howcheng 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity; however, I think it could be a copyright violation from here Sliggy 18:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the copy-paste job was done by Dr Chimy himself. The IP address of the article creator (81.10.37.69) is in Cairo, Egypt, where the good doctor lives.--Howcheng 18:45, 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. Will add cleanup tag. -Splash 01:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Ali Habib

He might be notable, as the founder of the largest bank in Pakistan (apparently they issued a stamp with him on it [29]), but I was only able to find 7 hits on Google for him. Using the spelling of his name in the article reveals 18 hits, including the copy-and-paste job from [30]. Perhaps including him in an article about Habib Bank would be more appropriate. --Howcheng 23:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment If his sole claim to fame is founding the bank, then he deserves inclusion in the bank article, but not his own article. Delete Allegrorondo
• Keep and expand. Being the founder of a bank certainly makes him notable enough for his own article. Capitalistroadster 18:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep w/ cleanup, looks notable though. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Obviously notable. Uppland 17:25, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founder Members of the FA Premier League

I spent a lot of time breaking this off from the original article (FA Premier League) and wikifying it, only to come to the conclusion that it's completely redundant. This list of teams only provides a summary of each -- what's the point? It would be better (and be more maintainable in the long run) to just mark the founding members with an asterisk or something and have readers just go to the team description pages for more detail, which is what I'll do. So I say delete this. --Howcheng 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well done, Howcheng. I'll second the Delete.Allegrorondo 17:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If the creator wants to delete, I won't oppose it. Themindset 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To be clear, I didn't write the content in the article. I just broke it off from the main article. --Howcheng 20:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see a good reason to delete this. Maintainability is absolutely not an issue; encyclopedias are products of their time. The summaries are useful information and should not simply be deleted. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC
• Delete. This is basically a mirror of the Premier League article and the respective club articles. If kept, I suggest we assign Tony to maintain it. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All the founding clubs have their own pages, and they are denoted thus in the lists in FA Premier League. This page is pretty pointless. Qwghlm 13:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep content not duplicated anywhere else.  Grue  06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Secretlondon 05:45, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaya

It is very superficial information. Migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are generally referred to as "bhaiya", "or "bhaiyyah", ("bhaiyya" means brother in Hindi). Generally people in the places they work see them as a collective entity. Many of them are labourers/working class people-this is a term which a migrant would not prefer to called by (though it is quite a respectable word WITHIN the community. The dialects spoken by these people are Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Maghi - all having entries on Wikipedia. These differene dialects are not differentiated by people of the other provinces and (especially Awadhi) is quite often used to in providing "character" to a character in Bollywood films —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.91.81 (talk • contribs).

• Delete: Looks like nonsense. Not encyclopedic. --Ragib 18:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: At its current state, the article seems to be more of an ethnic slur than a linguistic one. I'm not familiar with Bihar or what people from Bihar are termed, but the articles topic sounds more like the N-word to me. I'd like to see some verifyable sources for the information and some proof that this term is in use. --Ragib 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bihar --> Biharis. User:Nichalp/sg 07:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a notable ethnic stereotype. As the nominator explains "Generally people in the places they work see them as a collective entity." I urge him/her to edit the article and clarify it. Kappa 22:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename -- move to Bhaiya, the correct transliteration. User:Nichalp/sg 07:10, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Littmann

Delete or merge to Big Brother (USA TV series). He was only the third person evicted from the house. Just being a contestant on a reality TV show doesn't make one notable, especially if one is eliminated so early. Soltak 18:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, limits must be set i.e. not notable. feydey 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, leave a redirect to Big Brother (USA TV Series). Precedent has been set enough time for this, no need to bring to VfD. Proto t c 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Big Brother is certainly one of the most popular reality shows in the US, and it gives Mr. Littmann a significant amount of notability. Enough to be on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete of no value 6 months from now. Also POV. Rkevins82 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• There is no place on the Big Brother (USA TV series) page for a description of each contestent of each of the six seasons. The article is already huge. We should create a single page and describe all the contestents there. Paul99 01:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Or we could just not mention any of them with the obvious exception of the winner. Soltak 17:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. His 15 minutes are over. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Other contestants on Big Brother 6 are notable, for instance, Kaysar Ridha, but not Eric Littman. --Revolución (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge. Zoe 19:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. no sense at all in deleting an article where a person is on one of the most popular reality tv shows, otherwise we might as well start putting every person who is already on Wikipedia from previous seasons up for deletion. Also, someone will probably put it up again anyway, since there is a link or pre-link to every contestant already. Wikipedia advertises itself as striving for the sum of all human knowledge, how does it make sense to start deleting this? - Dave, August 20, 2005
• Merge all the contestants into one page but leave a redirect. There's only so much to be said about the early evictees and a single page with all the contestants would make things much simpler. Quicksandish 19:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - there is no reason to delete this article. It can be improved but should not be deleted. There are pages for the first person evicted from BB 6 Ashlea Evans and the second person evicted Michael Donnellan from BB6. If they are not up for deletion neither should this one. (Unsigned comment by 66.25.50.120)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Scissors

nn, joke page. patent nonsense. Syrthiss 18:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, it's patent nonsense. I've tagged it for speedy delete. -D. Wu 19:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN please! Literally laughed out loud in the office. Themindset 20:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kiddie stuff, something from camp. --Etacar11 00:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even stupider than its cousin Color or Country]. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think it fits the definition of patent nonsense (it's not random gibberish and is readable, though short) and is not a joke page (it does exist), but it, unlike Color or Country, is restricted to one camp and isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article. Sho Uemura 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• I couldn't make up my mind, so I flipped a one-sided coin and it came up heads. Delete. -- Curps 05:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlike Color or Country this game isn't notable or widespread. Cmouse 06:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - DS1953 06:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, this is a very localized, non-notable offshoot of Color or Country. It doesn't meet criteria for speedy deletion, though. RSpeer 14:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rock Scissors isn't restricted to camp and is played in various places, but everything that could be said about it is obvious from the name. No point to an article. Yasha 19:06, 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 Nomination withdrawn. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Sloan

POV Billbrock 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sloan probably merits entry based on winning the Supreme Court case, but the second paragraph of the 12 Aug 2005 article is at a risible distance from NPOV. Billbrock 18:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep because NPOV is not a valid criteria for deletion; it is a criteria for editing the page. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, POV is a valid criterion for deletion when the POV of the entire article is skewed. This is not quite a vanity entry, but it comes awfully close. No mention is made of Sloan's felony conviction. However, I agree that a complete rewrite would be an acceptable fix. Billbrock 00:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note to admin - I initiated the VfD, and now agree that neutrality dispute is more appropriate. Agree with speedy keep. Billbrock 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep.

The POV issues can be easily cleaned up by a 3rd party. His Supreme Court victory alone merits a wiki. Nagaflas 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Then could we get someone (obviously not me) to take a crack at it? Billbrock 17:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Um, no. We do not need articles on the tens of thousands of attorneys who have argued before the SCOTUS. Just because you have argued (or won) there does not make you notable. →Raul654 16:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe this to be a vanity page. Sloan's claims to fame are disputed to be quite spurious according to an extensive number of people--Knucmo2 18:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• [Keep] You don't understand. He is the last NON-JURIST to win a case before the Supreme Court. That is why he is noteworthy. Nagaflas 19:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Boils down to semantics. Does anyone disagree that this article fails NPOV? Doesn't matter whether this is remedied with a rewrite, or with delete & eventual replacement. Just needs to be remedied. Billbrock 17:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Sofixit CanadianCaesar 20:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Normally I would fix it, but I've recently been involved in a rather public dispute with Sloan (a convicted felon, a pornographer, a child molester, a racist, a habitual liar....). I cannot achieve NPOV :-) Billbrock 17:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 --malathion ^talk 21:16, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geek fraternities

It's completely POV, entirely slang. It contains no redeeming factual information, and was originally made as a joke post on slashdot. ✈ James C. 18:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an insult page. -D. Wu 19:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, then recreate as a redirect to the Fraternities and sororities article. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as redirect as per BD2412. Likely typo for "Greek fraternities". —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted/recreated. Denni☯ 03:24, 2005 August 13 (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. Paul August ☎ 04:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Street chaves

• Delete — This is just a freeware Street Fighter II parody. See http://www.caiman.us/scripts/fw/f1508.html. --Howcheng 18:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established beyond 649 Google hits. Eldereft 00:23, 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 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. Paul August ☎ 04:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HIV mitigation strategy

This article appears to be a well-intentioned application of the exponential function towards HIV control. It also appears to be a gross simplification of an equation used for predicting the spread of disease in general, which has been published here and here. As an application, however, it is nonetheless original research.

A quick search through NCBI's PubMed and Google reveals no specific academic journals or websites related to "HIV mitigation strategy" that makes use of the formula. -D. Wu 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. --Several Times 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being original research and not having any cites, but I would recommend forwarding this to the local content rescue squad-- it's worth worth writing an entry on this subject, just... not this entry. 71.98.81.176 00:39, 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. Paul August ☎ 04:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pagger

dicdef for apparently obscure slang, delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Laur 18:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dictdef. And seemingly pretty obscure. UkPaolo 18:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef/neologism. Jaxl | talk 22:23, 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. Paul August ☎ 04:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ttk

Delete. In first 120 entries of google I find nothing. THe page don't explain the name ttk, but the page is a raw copy (not wikified) of first part of Copycat. Ev. redirect or wikidiktionary Cate 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Come on chaps, deerstalkers on and get sleuthing. I am relisting this for lack of debate, and extending for another five days. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete yeah, no evidence of this term being used that way. And it's all about copycat... --Etacar11 19:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or if someone can verify the term is really in use (I sort of doubt it), redirect. -- Egil 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing useful here. Proto t c 22:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the kind of material that deletion was meant for. -- Visviva 06:29, 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.

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. Paul August ☎ 04:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catechism, a White Nationalism Ideology

Nonsensical, excessive rant about some kind of racism. Several Times 19:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — skinhead cruft. — RJH 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm holding my tongue on this one. - Lucky 6.9 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• [author's response] Who are these defamers of the American citizens who stand for the constiution and the Republic. Who are these racists against Whites, whom they do not want to preserve themselves? Who are these parasites of America who want to trample upon the liberty of the citizens? Who are these censors of freedom of speech? Be they identified by name and address so that they can be brought to justice. They deserve to be charged with suppression of American rights and provisions which are spelled out in the Constitutions. Come into the open, you mischievous and treacherous rabble. (I have copies of what i wrote. So, don't bother ALTERING my contents, which will stand as rightful before any court of law.) (comment by User:69.22.200.170)

  Yada-yada. Next time read the legal terms before you submit, genius.

• Delete personal manifesto. Gazpacho 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is hilarious that the anonoymous author demands the names and addresses of those who want to delete his personal manifesto. Ground Zero 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It is nonsense, though arguably not nonsense; it is a rant; it is posse comitatus tinfoil hattery. But if it is a real movement with any more than a handful of adherents it probably ought to have its very own article just like the White Aryan Resistance and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian and oh so many others, no? -EDM 21:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that a movement, even a small one, should have an article. This article provides no evidence of any movement beyond that occurring when the author sits on the toilet. The artile does not even refer to a movement, but rather to an "ideology", which kind of supports Gazpacho's point that it is a personal manifesto. The fact that the author made ridiculous threats of legal action, and has already made aggressive and inappropriate edits to the article tells me that this is not someone we want around. Will anyone be allowed to edit this article to NPOV it or bring it up to Wikipeida standard? Or will this guy just keep reverting and blustering about? Ground Zero 21:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I just used a weeks worth of self control not saying anything but no google hits related, and unencyclopedic rant. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 21:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 21:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above The Son of Oink 22:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

(Author's comment). I wrote my name in full in a message which has got lost in the shuffle. My full real name is also in my registration. DELETE those who wish to delete my message, since they are racists, suppressors of freedom of speech, enemies of and within the Republic, which must be save from them.

If you were American citizens, you would want to join in this freedom movement; you are on the other side, children of the trators of the Constitution, from Wilson to Bush, the servant of a foreign power, the cohort of those who are striving to make the American cizens servants of others. Delete yourselves from this Land!

• You're all correct, of course. Googling the supposed author's name (helpfully provided on the article's Talk page) turns up a bunch of neo-Nazi rants, but nothing to suggest that "Catechism" is a notable movement worthy of an article. Delete OR, nn. -EDM 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[Author:] Deletion, placing on the Index, and burning at the stake for good measure, have been methods of self-defense. You are aliens to the Constitution and the rights of the citizens, part of the scourge which has been afflicting the United States. Do what you must but we shall meet again.

• I'm starting to wonder if this guy's a troll. No-one could be this wacko and still know how to use a computer. Ground Zero 22:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• There are so many things that can be said about that remark, but I'll just settle on the obvious, impervious even to whatever this Author's nutty logic is, Wikepedia is an international encyclopedia. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 22:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[Author:] Ground Zero was the result of a plot by three parties, none of which involved American Whites. Treason from here and treason from there.....Ah, but I am going off on a tanget.... you still have to understand a word of anything I wrote in the article.

• Delete, ban user for threatening behaviour. ('Do what you must but we shall meet again') Proto t c 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; also delete user from this land. tregoweth 23:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hate-group vanity. Does not meet WP:HateGroup. 68.17.138.197 23:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
• Delete original "research," and perhaps recommend a good therapist for the author. Nandesuka 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as above, frightening how a computer can be used for hate. Nelgallan 00:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To the author: Come find me in Idaho. :P -Hmib 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Billbrock 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[Author:} You are a nice bunch of CENSORS, racists, defamators, ostracizers, anti White-Gentiles, violators of the right of free speech, cry-babies, intruders in the Republic of the USA, not to mention destitute in reading comprehension and deficient in self-knowledge. You could not deal with any of my tenets for two minutes; you are the mere defenders of your dogmas and primitive orthodoxy.

Hey! I resemble that remark! -EDM

Do I smell a troll? — RJH

• Delete as non-notable, and censure author for trying to disrupt the process. Haikupoet 03:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Delete and Ban User : This article is nn. Granted, I find the author's ideology abhorrent, but if he started an article about an ACTUAL and NOTABLE hate group, and followed the rules of Wikipedia (NPOV, civility, no legal threats, etc.), he'd have as much of a right as anyone else on here to add to our project. However, in this vfd alone, he's broken several Wikipedia Policies on numerous occasions. If he sockpuppets and continues this kind of behavior, he should be banned again. Maybe eventually he'll eschew his hateful nonsense and learn to play nice with others. Karmafist 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT: I'm worried about the immediate impact this might have on wikipedia. A minute passes that this crap stays on wiki, the more likelihood that someone will take offense and sue wikipedia? I'm not a lawyer (tm) and cannot say with authority what would happen then, but are we not responsible at least partly for the contents that even anon vandals place on it? It's blatantly obvious that this anon vandal's agenda is racism, so there should, in theory, be no discussion about its validity, since it IS racism and not just TALKING ABOUT racism, and the last time I checked, racism is illegal. I suggest that we at least quarantine this article first and make it inacessible or something. This might be something I wanna bring up at the vfd reform too. -Hmib 05:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't be sued, and it is in no way illegal, however this kind of hate rant does give Wikipedia a bad name. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 05:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what country you're in, Hmib, but in the USA racism is definitely legal. at least insofar as what you say or write. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's legal? Hm... Land of the free eh? Perhaps a bit too free... next the right to murder would also be included in the definition of free... Bah but I digress. As long as wikipedia isn't in danger then we have all the time we want to deal with this nuthead. It's pretty amusing. -Hmib 06:46, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bakky

Joke in Italian. It claims to be about a movie which was shown at the last Cannes Film Festival (I checked the complete list of films to be sure it is a hoax). Sietse 19:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Are not articles not in English automatically speedied / sent to the relevant language wiki? Eldereft 22:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
• Comment. Notenglish tag would have done the job, since "If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks, it will be listed for deletion". feydey 22:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved it from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English to VfD because I saw no reason to keep it for two weeks before listing it here. Sietse 00:14, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Agile Communicator: Jan Robert Ramos Go

This is a clearly autobiographical and self-promoting article. It is unwikified and looks like it has been copied from a blog. Ebz 19:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or append to list of self-proclaimed deities Allegrorondo 19:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity, 1 google result for "Jan Robert Ramos" [31] Jaxl | talk 22:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, in first person, no less. --Etacar11 00:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I KISS YOU! Hooper_X

Thankyou but you're not my type --Ebz 08:43, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rail UK

An article about a two-month old website that does not appear on the first page of Google links when searching for the page name. Sadly, as a railfan myself, I don't think this subject is notable enough for inclusion here. slambo 19:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. May achieve notability once it is more than a forum, but for the nonce the article serves no purpose. Eldereft 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. feydey 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, currently non-notable. Jaxl | talk 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but I don't think the google test above is fair as they are such common words... Secretlondon 05:48, 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 Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patareni

Minor band fancruft; likely copyvio. Copyright notice at bottom of the page --BaronLarf 19:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC #3. They've had a LOT of album releases. I strongly agree the material looks to be copyrighted, but the band is very legit. I think at a minimum the content needs to be wiped and replaced with something not having the copyvio problems, and maybe stubbed appropriately. --Durin 20:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. AMG does have an entry for this band, as small and empty as it may be. [32] It also mentions one of their albums in the "Credits" section. I think this just passes WP:MUSIC. I do agree that it currently looks like a copyvio, though. Jaxl | talk 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cant you take a joke? No any copyright for written material. Patareni are joke band so they cant be taken for seriously. If any problem-attack to: patarenicore@yahoo.com but send some i.r.c for reply Hahaha Cheers (comment left by 213.202.86.109; originally unsigned)

http://www.crometal.cjb.net/

CROATIAN METAL HISTORY Most of you are probably not familiar with any bands coming from Croatia, but there are quite some reasons for this fact...Apart from being a very small country with a population of only 4 million people, the Metal scene had to fight with several other problems like for instance the civil war, that took place from 1991 until 1995, and through which Croatia got an independent country. In days of former Yugoslavia and even nowadays, there was and is no underground label (because of the bad economical situation of the country), that could make promotion, but labels governed by the state. For this reason, there are only very few Metal albums done on a more proffessional format, which were mainly distributed to Yugoslavian only. But, nevertheless, quite a lot of underground bands were active, playing their music without getting much attention from the press. In the following lines, I will present you only bands from the nowadays Croatian territory (I focus mainly on the bands from the 80s, but also a few, that started in the early 90s!)........

........................Surely Grindcore legend PATARENI from Zagreb must not be missed, though many people would disagree to bring them in connection with Metal due to their influences from the Punk genre. But in my opinion, Metal is the biggest part of their music and therefore I will comment on them. PATARENI started back in 1983 and they are still alive! Their discography is immense with a lot of CDs, LPs and split singles with nowadays very famous bands such as Extreme Noise Terror, Agathocles or Cripple Bastards but also with unknown ones. Through this releases they gained a reputation as a cult band and many wellknown bands claimed PATARENI for being one of their main influences, which was prooved by several tribute releases. By the way, if you want to listen to their early from their long sold out split releases without paying exagerated prices, let me tell you that there was a CD released with the title "Tko Ne Pamti Iznova Prozivljava", that includes many material of those times. However, this band has made a lot of tours through foreign countries in the past and even played some shows in the USA. BUKA was a project of some Patareni members, that started around 1980 and ceased to exist in ca. 1990. I don`t have any information on their discography, but I know, that they have some split releases with Patareni. Well, I had only the oportunity to listen to their split CD and their side was called "Untalented After All These Seconds". Well, by selecting such a title, you can imagine how serious they took themselves. To me, the music is similiar to Patareni, but it is less Metal and more noisy and chaotic Grindcore with many crazy ideas, though still justified to categorize them in the Metal genre. But still I am of the opinion that if you like Patareni, you will also enjoy BUKA as long as you have a big sense for humour (but normally, every Patareni fan is humouristic, otherwise they would not like them!).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of HTML decimal character references (2nd VFD)

A list of every HTML character entity and the corresponding Unicode character from 32 to 10999. Great source material, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. It's been transwikied to Wikisource, so delete. --Carnildo 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The result of the previous VFD, which only ended a week ago, was to keep. If List of XML and HTML character entity references should be kept, so should this. Also, it wasn't transwiki'd to Wikisource, but simply duplicated there. This doesn't imply that the list belongs there, anymore than it implies that the list doesn't belong here. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-12 19:52
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 20:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's borderline so I'm not surprised that someone has transwikied it to WikiSource where it would also be appropriate, but I can conceive of encyclopedic uses for this list. For instance one could link the more significant characters or blocks of characters to relevant articles. As an example, say I don't recognise the symbol "σ" and I'd like to know what uses it has, it could be linked to Sigma. Enties like that would in time produce a very valuable encyclopedic resource, and not something one would necessarily want to do on WikiSource where the relevant articles can only be reached via transwiki link to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and put to Wikisource. In the form it is here it has no use - a tool which allows to search for character or convert text back and forth would be useful but Wikipedia doesn't have such capabilities.
  • See Tony Sidaway's comments. It clearly has a use. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 00:45
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikisource RustyCale 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What does that even mean? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 00:45
    • (from Wikisource:What is Wikisource?) "While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikisource is a library. Wikipedia contains articles about books, while Wikisource includes the book itself. To some extent both may include bibliographical material about the author." RustyCale 12:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a book, it is a list of useful symbols, if there was also a copied book on the history of HTML it would be different, but there isn't. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 15:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement applies to not only books but movies, OS kernels and other source material. This page is source material, not an article about HTML characters. RustyCale 12:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT a directory —Wahoofive (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this even close to a directory??? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 00:45
    • It's a directory of HTML codes, hello? —Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just like every other list on Wikipedia is a directory of people or objects. It is a list of useful symbols with links to the articles of some. What separates this list from any other list? →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 15:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is useful. An encyclopedia contains useful infromation. What am I missing? (don't answer that) →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: a demo of something wikisource couldn't do (and which is encyclopedic). Go to the article now and click on one of the blue-linked characters in the first couple of rows. Now imagine what will happen when *all* characters are linked like that. If you see a character you don't understand, just go to this article and click on the character, and you'll see what Wikipedia has to say about that character. This is precisely why Wikipedia exists on computers and not in a looseleaf binder. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that you mention it, I had a hankering to learn about question marks. So I went to Wikipedia, typed in "List of HTML decimal character references" into the search field, and voila! I found a page where I could click on a question mark to find out about them. Or maybe I wanted to learn about Minuscule, so I typed in "List of HTML decimal character references" so I could click on the letter "b" to get there. Totally logical. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you Captain False Analogy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 16:00
    • Sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet. Your examples are trivial; the principle works best when you see a character whose name you don't know. For example, this list would make the article for gimel accessible to people who only know the character as a funny-looking, nameless squiggle. --Tony Sidaway^Talk
• I've added a few sections with more content. I'm confident this has turned the article into something everyone will now consider is encyclopedic. I also think Tony's idea would be great and prove very useful for readers. It would also allow readers to know what the actual characters are that their browsers aren't displaying. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 01:32
• Delete. When you look up "unencyclopedic" in Wiktionary, it should include this page as an example. Nandesuka 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate? (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy) I'm wondering if you've even looked at the article or read anyone else's comments here. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 05:39
• Marginal Keep. I think it can be useful to see all of these in a list. And I don't know of any positive reason for it to be deleted. If it's kept, it ought to be moved to List of Unicode characters, since the list doesn't really have much to do with HTML. dbenbenn | talk 18:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't Unicode different? I'm just going by this site: "If you need to display characters which are not shown here then have a look at Unicode, a sixteen bit system for displaying almost any character; http://www.unicode.org." — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 18:47
  • Ahh nevermind, you're right. It probably should be at List of Unicode characters. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 18:52
• Speedy delete, recreation of deleted article Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999. —Cryptic (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't speedy delete an article just because you fancy it bears a passing resemblance to another article that has been transwikied. Let's discuss *this* article --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think tacking another thousand characters at the end prevents it from being a "substantially identical copy". —Cryptic (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you in fact looked at the deleted article Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999? If so, why are you making transparently false claims? If not, why are you wasting time? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have. Anyone else may also do so at wikisource:Transwiki:Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999 (until it's moved), and compare it to the article under discussion for themselves. —Cryptic (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sigh... Anything that isn't an outright lie is technically useful, which is in itself a useless argument. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the argument mentioned isn't an otright lie, than how could it be technically useful, and a useless argument at the same time. I think you need to show what separates technically useful from just plain useful. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 02:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes. It did get a bit confusing there. Claiming that something is "useful" is a useless argument in this context. This is true even if the perfectly correct information (the non-lie) is just plain ol' "useful" rather than the more specific "technically useful". / Peter ^Isotalo 03:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is one of the most useful things I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've missed something, but aren't encyclopaedias supposed to have useful information in them? - ulayiti (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Should be Speedy Keep due to having survived a VfD only a week ago. People are way too hung up on the idea that every wikip page has to be of the discursive kind that get featured and shown on the main page. --zippedmartin 20:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has some value, has been kept in the past. NoSeptember 14:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Split, by which I also mean keep. This article is huge-o massive-o which detracts from it being awesome-o. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - could be useful. Trollderella 01:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Derktar 05:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC).
• Keep as per Tony Sideway. arj 13:24, 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 delete. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clary Gomez

Vanity Page Supasheep 19:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn teen vanity, shouldn't there be a speedy rule for people claiming to be superheroes? ;) --Etacar11 20:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It makes me crazy that we can't just speedy this kind of crap. Denni☯ 02:41, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Delete as fast as possible. Vanity page, not notable. ♠ DanMS 23:42, 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 speedy-deleted on 13 Aug. Closing the discussion.

[edit] Bedoyi Oyi

A hoax created as a link from a vanity page Supasheep 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense article. 12.22.156.97 20:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as patent nonsense is fine by me. Kappa 22:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Immediate delete Erwin Walsh
• Speedy think of the penguins and rodents! ;) Hoax. --Etacar11 00:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Consider it speedied. Denni☯ 02:39, 2005 August 13 (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.

This decision is without prejudice against the recreation of an article about the oil field. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hassi Messaoud Field

This article is in the wrong place: Hassi Messaoud is a large oil field in Saudi Arabia Algeria; this is something about a new kind of pump. (I think? It's almost completely incomprehensible.) It has to be moved to another location, at the least; however, I'd suggest we delete it. Eugene van der Pijll 20:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur w/ EvdP, except that the field seems to be in Algeria. I cannot find anything that looks like the pump this article seems to be extolling. The region apparently also was formerly an oasis for traders in the Sahara, if someone finds enough info on that I would support it, but the oilfield itself (and certainly this article) seems non-notable. Eldereft 21:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  The oil field has an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so it may be notable enough for us. (This is unrelated with the current article under discussion, of course.) Eugene van der Pijll 22:11, 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. Rossami (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mandellas and The Mandellas (band) and Lost and Found album

Delete, I think. I can find no Google reference or allmusic.com reference. The anon (and vandal) IP that made the page did blank it with the summary "there is no such band. this was all a joke to see how gullible the world is.". However, instead of tagging it for speedy I brought it here because of the Lost and Found album article which is apparently by the band. However, I cannot find that on allmusic.com or Google either. Hoax, nn, or what? Please do try to verify the album before voting on the basis of it. -Splash 20:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record I also extend my vote to delete all. -Splash 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• We have The Mandellas, The Mandellas (band) and Lost and Found album all by the same User:Beach boys and all unverifiable - the bio looks like bs, and the album 'sold only 200 copies' - delete the lot (I'm adding the (band) to this VfD) --Doc (?) 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

look closely at Image:Mandellas.png. Someone has gone to a lot of photoshop for our entertainment. --Doc (?) 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, no evidence of notability as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete judging from the photoshopped band pic, I'd say hoax. --Etacar11 00:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Secretlondon 05:47, 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 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language as an Instance of Left Hemispheric Specialization for Temporal Processing

This is an article on a single journal-paper; it lacks sufficient notability for a separate article (and if we have an article on every paper published, we'll need storage the size of a planet). The best that could be said is that it might be included in the bibliography section of a relevant article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem worthy of it's own article...delete. AlbertR 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not even see this paper on PubMed. Sounds interesting, but not encyclopoedic. Eldereft 21:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per M.E. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, part of the sum of human knowledge. Incidentally things having their "own article" has pratically no impact on storage. Kappa 00:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  Do you know how many papers are published every year? Just take a look at one of the indices or sets of abstracts for a single subject-area. There are hundreds of thousands of them (probably millions if we look at world-wide publications; a paper from the "Institute of Science in Society" quotes a rough estimate of millions a year, and a paper on Physics Web reveals that "the number of papers published every year in the natural sciences has increased by a factor of between two and four since 1974"). There might not be much difference between an individual separate article and a bibliographic listing (though in fact I'm pretty certain that there would be at the numbers involved here), but 99% of papers wouldn't be mentioned in any bibliography on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). (Research done a few years ago, using a couple of prestigious Physics journals as its subjects, showed that individual papers were read by an average of one and a half people.)
  In any case, that's not my main reason for the nomination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Everything is the part of the sum of human knowledge, yet we're not supposed to keep everything. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A research paper published in a journal is part of the "sum of human knowledge" in a different way than "what I had for breakfast" is. Kappa 09:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but both are certainly not encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am the contributor of this page and I just cannot understand why fiction books and comics have their own article while a scientific paper can't. If you delete it, you should move the information in an article about language learning. Www.wikinerds.org 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What can I say? We have a quite extreme bias towards popular culture, especially the kind enjoyed by young, white (, male) Americans and Europeans. The most obvious examples are Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokémon and Lord of the Rings. I'm definetly a defender of the academic myself, but fiction still tends to be more notable than scientific papers, and going overboard with the inclusion of very obscure material is hardly a good way to counter this problem. It's hard to be consistent all the time... :-/ / Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While agreeing with Peter, I should also add that the W.w.o's analogy fails; we have few articles on individual short stories, unless they're very notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. Also, that title is ludicrous; any material on the issue should be inserted into Left hemisphere instead. Radiant_>|< 18:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - another advert/spam masquerading as a really bad article - Tεxτurε 17:50, 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. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Momoloe

No explanation, makes no sense. Wasn't sure if this qualifies for speedy delete?

Delete Erwin Walsh

• Delete doesn't appear to exist. --Etacar11 00:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Walsh has made 7 VFDs on his first day here, most are disputed. He gave this article less than 5 minutes thought as is shown by the history. --Gorgonzilla 14:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but I find nothing about this word. Verify its usage to me and I will change my vote. --Etacar11 14:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as of now it is a substub - even if it's true, it's so short as to be trival to recreate. JesseW 17:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No relevant google hits. Martg76 17:59, 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 Deleted by Lucky 6.9 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC) as reposting of previosly deleted material

[edit] Opa Ages

Seems to be an advert for a website that doesn't look notable, and it also reads like nonsense. Delete. AlbertR 20:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Citing racism is an advert? This is a true story.

• No, it's vandalism. I've removed this idiocy and variations on the theme six times today. - Lucky 6.9 21:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Morally repugnant. And, more importantly, non-notable. Eldereft 21:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Opa-Ages is an off-shoot forum from the Gaming-Age Forums, which are questionably notable. Opa is mostly a weak FYAD wanna-be, as it's mostly topicless and tends to be dominated by the users showing off how mean they can be to each other. (Also, note that the article is more or less entirely false.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 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 14:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Live P.A.

pointless article, already covered elsewhere. Created by anon user to publicise Dave Jumpers, which is itself vfded illWill 21:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability (besides to Mr. Jumpers) can be established. There are almost as many pseudo-techno genres as there are performers. Eldereft 21:27, 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 Merge and Redirect to Batman. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bat-Embargo

Neologism used to define a restriction of the use of Batman characters to certain movies and shows, dissalowing their use in shows such as Justice League Unlimited. Not notable enough for an article of this own. Merge and redirect to Batman. The article is short enough (three sentences) that it will not be an issue to merge it. FuriousFreddy 21:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Batman. -Satori 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with DC Animated Universe as it has more to do with that than Batman. KramarDanIkabu 23:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If you want it merged, don't bring it to VfD. You can do the merging yourself. -- Visviva 07:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If I'm 100% sure I should merge something, uit gets merged. This is a case where I wanted a group consensus before doing something that might draw the ire of other editors. --FuriousFreddy 11:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Discuss it on the talk page then. Snowspinner 00:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Snowspinner 00:03, 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. Rossami (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surtifyd

Not notable, google gives nothing and "5 south" gives mostly "south park". No album info in article eighter. feydey 21:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sigh...these guys kept trying to post this idiocy of theirs under different titles. I got the same result. No Google. Delete. Just as long as this goes away. - Lucky 6.9 21:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 22:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:54, 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 delete. Cannot work out how this can be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meta learning model

Original research/borderline nonsense. Google hits: 24. Delete. AlbertR 21:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, even if this is valid and known theory the article doesn't deserve life. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Emotion, Computational sociology or some such, otherwise delete. Has been cited in the literature but is not independently noteworthy. Dlyons493 22:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, garbled, etc. Paul 23:41, 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.

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 14:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pastafarians

• Keep. To all of you unbelievers, I hope that you may someday be touched by his noodley appendage
• Looks like some kind of joke. AlbertR 21:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy'd? Sounds like kingdomofloathing cruft to me... -Hmib 01:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; joke, not a joke, whatever. Just delete it. Paul 05:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. -- Visviva 09:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• ReDirect and Merge. "pastafarian" already redirects to Flying Spaghetti Monster --KillerChihuahua 13:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • also would like to add to AlbertR, how do you vote? Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, BJAODN, or other? and to the anonymous Keep vote above (To all of you unbelievers...) please remember to sign your vote (history shows you to be Pastafarian, which makes me think perhaps this is a vanity vote.)--KillerChihuahua 13:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep! This is an internet cult!

• Merge into Flying Spaghetti Monster (which should obviously be cleaned up and kept). This is obvious. Doops | talk 03:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above Amren ^(talk) 03:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Flying Spaghetti Monster. This article is poorly written and does not contribute anything new.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baberu

Very short articles providing little or no context. The user appears to be in a position to write wiki page content rather than supplying it by email. Dlyons493 21:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, real place. Incidentally "Very short articles providing little or no context" are candidates for speedy deletion, and so are attempts to communicate. Kappa 22:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Real place, so hopefully the user will create an article or even a stub while the vfd is being processed.
  • Keep - It's now a stub and hopefully will expand over time. Dlyons493 20:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- places are included in Wikipedia. User:Nichalp/sg 07:11, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey! Who took My pie?

Non-notable Flash animation. (Specifically, "a Flash Animation created by Tom Seanfogy. I'ts an animation about a guy named Tom and he's looking for his pie, and end in heaven with Jesus." tregoweth 22:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Animation good for a five-second chuckle, but it's not notable. Jaxl | talk 01:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What they said - Matthew0028 04:45, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ace of Spades (song; live)

This article is about a live single version of a song by Motörhead. The song already has an article at Ace of Spades (song). Cover versions of songs do not normally get their own articles so this live version should not either. I previously merged and redirected this article with the song's main article but my edits were reverted by it's creator. --Moochocoogle 22:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable record release. Kappa 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ace of Spades (song). The AMG link on this article only reviews the recorded version, not the live one. Of course, if it seems illogical that someone would type "Ace of Spades (song; live)", then just delete it. Jaxl | talk 22:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Merge with Ace of Spades (song). Redirects are fun and cheap! -- BD2412 ^talk 22:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • After seeing the work put into this, a mere redirect would be inappropriate. Preserve the information, but keep it in one article. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Jax. No need for article about live version. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Etacar11 00:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Motorhead has a full discography, removing it makes timelines and moving from one single to next impossible. The singles were released to support different albums. Moochocoogle states that most band don't deserve a song entry and redirected without reference, note or moving deleted data to talk (removed pictures, lyrics etc when 'merging'). Now I've unmerged: immediately on VfD. Also for both, take a look at the discography section on the motorhead page and suggest what to do if this are deleted, leave them red? Alf 11:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If you view my merged version here, you will see that i managed to keep all the information, (including pictures), in one article (except for the lyrics, which are almost certainly copyrighted). I preserved the single timeline by slightly altering the infobox. It makes so much more sense to do it this way. Currently, song articles in Wikipedia are all primarily about the song, with single releases of the song mentioned as part of the article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs). Creating two articles about one song doesn't make sense, no matter how many times it has been recorded and released as a single. By the proposed scheme of having articles about each single release of a song could end up creating hundreds of articles with little meaningful information about frequently covered songs (or duplicating most of the information in each article). --Moochocoogle 19:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You did embed the items I do apologies for that, the picture was in a place I didn't expect, from a reader point of view I find it confusing, chart listing, producer, space for timings (when I have a break to time the ones that aren't on the records), album position all of these are really unclear (IMHO). A note on the article or my talk page have alerted me to the ongoing discussion on rules for articles subject to this catgory - I understand that a consensus is forming that supports your edits, however, loss of clarity in the topic for the want of two pages would be a shame.
• Keep -- this is a distinct record release, part of the discography. *Dan* 12:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging these will diminish the value and clarity of both entries (they should have links to each other though) NoSeptember 13:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a well-organized group of articles. A random cover version should usually not merit a separate article but when someone takes the time to organize a topic coherently, we should applaud the end result. -- DS1953 17:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a separate and distinct entry in the Mötörhead catalogue. This was released as a special edition and should been documented separately. Hamster Sandwich 21:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mötörhead's awesome. I'm for as many articles about Mötörhead as possible, especially when they're this competent. Hooper_X
• Delete. Unencyclopedic Motörhead cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What they said. --Methegreat 19:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a seperate release, and so is equally deserving of a seperate page as any studio album. 7Munkys 09:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If a studio album is released several times, maybe with a different track listing, we don't automatically have seperate articles for them. A note is just made in the original article. --Moochocoogle 19:57, 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. -Splash 01:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motörhead (song; live)

Same reason as Ace of Spades (song; live), above. --Moochocoogle 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable record release. Kappa 22:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Motörhead (song). Of course, if it seems illogical that someone would type "Motörhead (song; live)", then just delete it. Jaxl | talk 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When the singles section of the discography on the Motorhead page was set up, it was formatted like that, the article was written from the red link. I checked the date position and listing in my book, "The Illustrated Collectors Guide to Motorhead", where it appears in the official single discography.Alf 13:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Merge with Motörhead (song). Redirects are fun and cheap!  BD2412 ^talk 22:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • After seeing the work put into this, a mere redirect would be inappropriate. Preserve the information, but keep it in one article. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Jax1. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, again. --Etacar11 01:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the live song version reached no6 in the UK charts, it predecessor (the object the redirect) didn't reach anywhere. Another intial redirect from Moochocoogle, removing, pictures, data, lyrics from the merged to article, without note or placing deleted data on talk. The motorhead singles all deserve a place, take a look at the motorhead discography single section and suggest what to do if they are deleted, leave the links red? A reader cannot browse ther timeline without it, each single supported a different album. These are not 'just' song pages they form part of the Motorhead discography. I left a polite note on Moochocoogles page to say why I unmerged his work and the reponse is immediate VfD. Alf 11:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As with AoS, above, please read my merge here. Again, no information or pictures were deleted. --Moochocoogle 20:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You did embed the items I do apologies for that, the picture was in a place I didn't expect, from a reader point of view I find it confusing, chart listing, producer, space for timings (when I have a break to time the ones that aren't on the records), album position all of these are really unclear (IMHO). A note on the article or my talk page have alerted me to the ongoing discussion on rules for articles subject to this catgory - I understand that a consensus is forming that supports your edits, however, loss of clarity in the topic for the want of two pages would be a shame.
• Keep -- it's a different record release, with a different cover picture and a different B-side track, and at a different point in the chronology. *Dan* 12:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging these will diminish the value and clarity of both entries (they should have links to each other though) NoSeptember 13:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThis release is notable in and of itself. Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a seperate release, and so is equally deserving of a seperate page as any full length album- particularly as it enjoyed some degree of chart success. 7Munkys 09:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It makes perfect sense to keep it. This is an encyclopedia, and if you have one article for two separate things, it will confuse people.--Methegreat 00:37, 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. The "5000 google hits" argument was, in my mind, successfully rebutted by the analysis that only about 140 of them were non-duplicative. 140 hits is well below even the minimal standards normally accepted for an article from popular culture.

Note that this is not a VfD about the actress. This discussion is about an article on a single webvideo. Rossami (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faites l'Amour avec Clara Morgane

I'm an inclusionist, but this is where even inclusionism stops. Forget the nudie pics, which are easily removed, but Wikipedia can quite obviously never contain articles on every porn movie ever created (I'm pretty sure porn movies are shot at a faster rate than we get contributors). It stands to reason therefore that all those that are included should be notable for something (Deep Throat, Debbie Does Dallas). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is all an article on a forgettable movie like this could ever be. We recently adopted a speedy criterion that covers articles on persons that do not establish notability. We might need a similar one for fiction, of whatever kind. I regret using this nomination as an instructive example, but I don't think it's WP:POINT—just deleting it would actually violate policy.

Oh, and just in case: delete, of course. JRM · Talk 22:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, 5,900 google hits. I don't follow your argument... users would want to be able to look this up, why deny them that? Kappa 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  Because this is not what an encyclopedia ought to be. Subjective? Yes. I'm not going to pretend it's not. This article can probably be made verifiable, so that's not the problem. I am voting on notability here. "User would want to be able to look this up", can you imagine anything that falsifies such a criterion? Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to want to look up anything you can possibly imagine. By this criterion, everything of which the existence can be independently verified should have an article. I don't believe that's tenable. JRM · Talk 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  "Subjective" is the opposite of NPOV. 5,900 google hits prove that far more than "someone, somewhere" would want to be able to look this up. Kappa 22:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  The neutral point of view does not apply to article inclusion criteria. And 5,900 Google hits can be irrelevant, just as 12 can be. JRM · Talk 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification, as I see an important misunderstanding arising here. The "subjective" part arises not in deciding whether this particular movie should be in Wikipedia, but whether all movies that do not establish notability apart from having been sold to people at some time should be. I can see how applying a criterion like "I don't think it should be here" for individual articles would be wrong and decidedly non-neutral. (Though it still has nothing to do with NPOV as written.) JRM · Talk 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  Requiring extra notability beyond a reasonably sized audience is not representing the POV of that audience, probably all of whom would like to be able to look it up. Kappa 23:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  "I want to be able to look this up" is not a point of view, not in the sense we use it. A POV is a way of interpreting reality, not a desire. Your claim seems to be that if something has 5,900 Google hits, this establishes that many people believe it is notable, and it is this POV that ought to be represented. I dispute that. While many people will have been involved in the production, marketing, selling and buying of this movie, you will not convince me that they (or even a significant portion of them) believe this movie ought to be in an encyclopedia, or that they would think it a good idea if it were, or in fact anything else relevant to Wikipedia's coverage. I acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion on what the encyclopedia should contain, but I cannot agree that my opinion somehow violates NPOV. JRM · Talk 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep - it certainly passes WP:V, and Wikipedia is not paper. If we can build consensus on notability guidelines for adult films, and it can be shown that this film doesn't meet those guidelines, I could be convinced to change my vote. -Satori 23:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Delete Agreed, 140 real web hits, not notable -Satori 17:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Of those vaunted Google hits, only 140 of them are useful, so there is plenty of repetitive usage and few people looking for it. -Splash 00:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a porn aficionado. This is not notable. No one will ever look this up on purpose. Nandesuka 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIO establishes 5,000 as the ballpark figure for entertainment figures appearing in "commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more". Presumably, the criterion to be met for such commercial entertainments is 5,000 as well. With over 5,000 Google hits this meets such a criterion. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But like I said, only [140 of them are useful. -Splash 01:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. That is what I would normally refer to as "140 Google hits". I also don't think Google hits have any connection with WP:BIO or "watched by a total audience". WP:V is a very, very, very weak criterion, the most minimal, puny, wispy little creature of an article criterion that we have. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and check also the Copyright status of the four images. 68.91.98.249 17:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Googling for porn is useless for establishing notability. And it's too distracting when you're in the mood for löööv. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:13, 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. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc binney

Silly pile of nonsense that lists impossible processes such as freebasing blood and smack to create cannabis. Erwin Walsh

• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Comment While I certainly agree this article is probably not the best place for Wikipedia, I suspect this may ave been mistakenly written for Uncyclopedia. I would suggest moving it there. 64.12.116.135 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find a single reference for any of the terms or names mentioned. For a laugh, click the link of the supposed drug Herion. --IByte 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity and nonsense. ManoaChild 23:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nonsense. Yep, addicted to a Steward of Gondor. --Etacar11 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: restored removed VfD header --IByte 21:36, 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.

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. →Raul654 07:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actual effects of invading Iraq

Before anyone objects, I know cleanup candidates shouldn't be brought here, but I'm being bold. I think this article is beyond cleanup and we should just put it out of its pathetic miserable existence. As it stands, it isn't an assessment of the effects of invasion; it is a POV scorecard on whether the alleged objectives have been met. The subject is covered elsewhere- whatever your view on Iraq, consider whether this article can ever be anything other than the shitty mess it has been up till now --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please also give your assessment at the duplicate article Predicted effects of invading Iraq, which is actually less up to date focusing on unsourced POV items, and is up for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Predicted effects of invading Iraq.

• Delete.The article takes newsworthy events and has to interpret them in its own way to reach the conclusions it does, and thus is a mixture of POV and original research and irredemably so. This article should be remade in the future when the "actual" effects have come to be agreed by the expert community. Try again in about 2050. -Splash 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any way to make this article not smell of POV, not to mention original research -Satori 23:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say delete (along with its sister article, Predicted effects of invading Iraq). I'm sure the contents are covered elsewhere, and the format is irredeemably unencylopedic, I think. The only iota of value is as a brainstorm for checking these issues are covered in the appropriate articles. Which in fact leads to the suggestion of maybe moving it to a relevant talk page or wikiproject page (see Category:2003 Iraq conflict; funnily enough there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Iraq). Rd232 23:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsustainable article that will rapidly degenerate into a POV-battlefield. Actual subliminally indicates that all other findings of such effects are untruthful, adding to POV problems. -Hmib 00:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well researched article. Wikipedia seldom covers historical events so well. The writers are to be commended. One point: the claims researched should be sourced, and the sources should be predictions made before and during the invasion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia seldom covers historical events with so many question marks. The reason there are so many is because the actual effects simply aren't known yet, and the only way one can claim to know what they are is to interpret a set of facts relating to one of the most unstable situations in the world. There is no reason why this could not be recreated in 10-15 years' time. -Splash 02:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the question marks bother you, edit the article to replace them with the word "uncertain" or a phrase such as "not yet known". Or comment out the predictions for which the outcome is still uncertain; they can be added back. The other results are useful where the prediction can be sourced (as I said above) and the outcome is known for a fact (such as for instance the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the elimination of the threat of future Iraqi used of weapons of mass destruction, etc). It's close to OR but I think it can be done in a neutral way from sources and should be allowed to continue with that objective in mind. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as needed into appropriate target pages; this title is unacceptable and the format should also be abandoned. If a page of this nature is to be kept intact, it needs major reworking, but there seems to be plenty of good information here. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking over the related articles, there doesn't appear to be any extra info outstanding here. That leaves the case for this article to rest on its presentation of information, which is actively unhelpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Delete as completely original research. Nandesuka 05:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the article is beyond saving, having started from a hopelessly POV stance. bokkibear 12:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The worthwhile material is already better covered elsewhere. - SimonP 16:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• keep (and actually put some work into it!) It is pretty bad as it is, but the idea of the article, in correspondance to the predicted effects... article, is exactly to be a scorecard: to record all of the predictions and compare them with what actually happened. Provided one is thorough and honest about what was predicted (and doesn't revise it retrogressively to fit a conclusion), and these predictions are objective, onecan also be objective about the actual effects. if the result strongly favors a given conclusion, that is no proof that there was any POV involved. To think it would be would be employing the "gray fallacy" - the fallacy that nothing is ever black and white but is always a shade of gray almost exactly between the two. There is absolutely nothing that garauntees this. It is a specail case of "assuming the conclusion" - which is exactly what one wants to avoid when trying to achieve NPOV. And no, the worthwhile material is not already better covered elsewhere.

the corresponding page, "predicted effects..." already faced a vfd about a year ago on the basis of things being "unattributed opinions", but it passed because the authors provided sources, thus attributing the predictions. To say that the information in this article is unattributed is factually incorrect, besides being clearly intended to persuade rather than reason (clearly, in that it is false. and also in light of the following). The fundamental question, whoever, is whether the predictions accurately and proportionally represent the spectrum of predictions made in support of or opposition to the war, during the time prior to the war. The thorough attribution in this article (at the bottom, rather than mixed in) is simply one means of approaching that goal. And certainly there is much further to go; much work to be done on this article. In any case, the point of this article is to be just that: a snapshot of the various predictions concerning the iraq war prior to the war - for the sake of history and reflection. Remember, the coming generations are not going to have experienced the iraq war and the political turmoil surrounding it - they're not going to know all of those things that both the people voting "keep" and the people voting "delete" do, unless we make a record of that information here. That is the point of an encyclopdia, that is the point of academic literature in general. those voting "delete" are encouraged to "then fix it", so that future generations may have the knowledge that they, and we all collectively, do, but would otherwise be lost to them. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. C'mon... Just look at the title. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The title is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The issues can be better covered in articles set up on a more conventional basis. Osomec 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NPOV and riddled with original research in its basic conception. DGaw 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By "NPOV" I assume you mean POV, however, this cannot be so "in its basic conception", unless the subject matter is inherently POV, and clearly "effects of invading iraq" isn't pov insofar as there certainly are effects of invading iraq. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not certain how this existed for the last 2 plus years, but I assume POVers. It is POV by definition: it is entirely an original assessment. --Noitall 20:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is POV and original research. Carioca 21:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. Completely POV and inaccurate original research. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every event in history has had effects, but this is the only one I know of that requires a separate Wikipedia entry for them. Korny O'Near 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POVBAR.  Grue  06:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps merging with Predicted effects of invading Iraq. Rama 15:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How did such a horrible thing manage to remain listed for so long? Kudos to Doc for the flag. Dottore So 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is crap. POV issues aside, none of the points are sourced and a lot of the claims are flat out inaccurate.--csloat 22:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, awful. Babajobu 08:04, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of childless people

An impossible list. It would include almost every Pope, almost every saint, and every child on Wikipedia. Zoe 23:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No need to include THAT well-known facts, or at least we can link to the categories. The list should be limited to actors, politicians and celebrities, or to people who are childless by choice Pictureuploader 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; pointless Erwin Walsh
• Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oh my. Delete, unmaintainable list- the first time I've ever said that. CanadianCaesar 23:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator Soltak 00:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as List of dead people without descendants. -Hmib 00:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously? -Splash 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How does that resolve the concerns I listed in my nomination? Zoe 04:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine make it list of famous dead people without descendants. That should narrow it down to, what, a few hundred? -Hmib 05:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no. As I said, it would cover thousands, yay, millions of people. Anyone who died as a child, most Popes, most saints, etc. Zoe 05:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are less than a hundred popes, just a few thousand saints, only a few hundred of whom were actually well-known, and unless a (dead) child is notable somehow, he/she wouldn't be included. -Hmib 05:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Only a few thousand entries? You got worried for a while there... / Peter ^Isotalo 02:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. -Splash 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , although really, it can't ever be more than a few billion entries, can it? Wikibofh 05:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list —Wahoofive (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zoe's list is very, very summarized. It would probably include half of our inventory of person articles. No redirects. Just get rid of it... / Peter ^Isotalo 02:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Childless people don't have enough in common to be worth grouping. Osomec 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Unmaintainable. Not to mention potential arguments about whether people whose children died before them, therefore leaving them without heirs ("without descendants"), would qualify. - Skysmith 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Should be a category if it is worthwhile, being childless is not in itself very notable.--Gorgonzilla 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)