Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< July 31 August 2 >
Info There is currently an ongoing debate over the page deletion process and how it could be improved. See Wikipedia:Deletion reform. See also the separate proposal and vote at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that would remove the VFD process and replace it with a category-based scheme at once. Also see the related RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD.

Contents

[edit] August 1

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). For those interested, vote count is 11 to delete, 6 to keep. I cannot call that a consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Lawn Resort

Not notable, or at least not established, and it's an ad. Mmmbeer 00:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find anything that makes it notable, either. AlbertR 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Although it's largely just a resort, it does have its own runway, and there aren't many holiday resorts (or similar) that have that. It gets lots of Googles (9700ish) too. If I'm being misled by their website here, I'm mind-changeable. -Splash 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's fewer than that. I'm sure that this isn't the only "Lake Lawn Resort". If you make it "'Lake Lawn Resort' Delavan", you get like 6k, and lots are duplicated yellow page listings. Are all resorts, notable? Mmmbeer 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, most certainly not all resorts are notable. Perhaps this is my UK perspective: if a resort here had its own airstrip, it would be quite something. The Google hits are, as you say, quite a lot of advertising. But quite a few of them also appeared to be mentions that Company X had had their Event Y there. Though any resort can manage that. Ho hum...I'm struggling a bit with this one. -Splash 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a resort with an airport (i'm still not sure if that makes it notable). However, this is all the article says. It also reads like an ad. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of it is actually plagiarised from the website, but I think it has enough interspersed fluff to avoid copyvio. -Splash 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Resorts are generally notable as places with communities of interest and this particular one was founded in 1879. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, unless significantly improved. The article is currently little more than an advert and a platform for an external link. And I suspect that claiming you've got an airport generally means you've got a longish strip of tarmac. Flowerparty talk 02:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Alex.tan 03:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand It seems notable enough Cyclone49 11:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability and commercial advertisement, unless notability can be demonstrated. Airstrips on resorts are not notable IMO, there are housing developments that have them. The Hokkaido Crow 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable destination for people in the upper Midwest. By the way, if you search just "Lake Lawn" and "Delavan" you pick up a couple thousand more hits than with the word "Resort" added, since a lot of people refer to it as "Lake Lawn Lodge". DS1953 19:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just a poorly written advertizement. Vsmith 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I just wikified it. I can't see any strong reason to delete it Megapixie 03:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN & Ad. --RoySmith 01:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising, notability not established. JamesBurns 03:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current version seems factual.
The question is not whether it's factual, but whether it's notable. What's so special about this place that sets it apart from other resorts? Does it have a long and distinguished history? Have famous people gone there? Have there been notable events that happened there? Anything? So far, the most interesting thing the article tells you is how long it takes to drive there from Chicago. --RoySmith 00:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, but I disagree that non-notability is a valid criterion for deletion, except to the extent where it precludes verifiability. People's appeal to non-notability as a reason for deletion makes it appear as though it is a non-controversial part of official WP policy. As it stands, I see no reason why people who are looking for information on Lake Lawn Resort should be met with a blank page. arj 01:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete along with all subpages, by wide margin. FCYTravis 06:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy

It was recently brought to my attention at WP:AN that these pages promote and always will promote original research additions to Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia policy, I agree that these pages should be deleted. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please also the following sub-pages:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild (which already is already up for a seperate vfd)
  • I think we should delete all these pages. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sasquatch. --Phroziac (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The only member of these "WikiProjects" is User:Striver. AlbertR 01:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • coment yes, of course, i just started them, those and the Islam PROJECTS. If you take a look, you will see that discusions is already started in the "world conspiracy" already! --Striver 01:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. -Splash 01:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are lots of people with outside-the-mainstream views who work to overcome majority POV in articles. As long as it's civil discourse and not edit wars and such, any contribution is helpful. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Coment Thank you! And i hope everyone remebers this, we who belive in a curent date conspiracy are grossly outnumbered. --Striver 01:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Don't necessarily take that as an endorsement of your POV, mind. I just don't like seeing minorities interested in civil discourse and contribution getting the bum's rush. Just remember that original research still isn't allowed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Keep

  1. Its not a article, the template says "article"
  2. Its a project, aimed at, yes exactly what a project is supposed to do: try to improve existing articles.
  3. Go and VFD Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG if you are sincere, otherwise you are exposing your falsehood.

Truth is, you are allergical to the word "conspiracy" and can not stand that there is a PROJECT aimed to improve the quality of the manny conspircy ARTICLES in WP.


--Striver 01:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies that a conspiracy theory is by definition original research I quote from conspiracy theory: "Colloquially, a conspiracy theory is any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration." and that your project states that you "Feel that evidence for that belief needs to be represented in Wikipedia". This is evident as you note that the 9/11 Commission Report is "Full of blatant lies, whitewash. The most accepted coincidence theory, same as the Warren Commission." on Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild (among others on that page). This therefore presents some conflicts with the rules of Wikipedia and we should not promote adding conspiracy theories into Wikipedia. If you feel that this project is important, I suggest you reword it so it is not as controversial. And just because the tag says article doesn't mean it can't be applied to other pages, the VfD is here to get a community consensus about certain pages in Wikipedia. And adding original research is in contrary to current policy. And you can go VfD Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG as you have the right to so long as you provide a valid explination on the VfD page on why the project is innapropriate. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or improve.. - I think the concerns that the Wikiproject pages are encouraging original research are valid. However, there are notable conspiracy theories, also, which have and should have articles. I see nothing wrong with a project for improving articles on the subjects, so long as it is not soliciting original research or original/non-well-known conspiracy theories. --Mysidia 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Bro, of course articles need to be NPOV and sourced, but a project? A project is like a talk page, it does not need to be NPOV at all, its like a private room where we disscus strategies. if we cant talk open, how are we suppposed to develop our ideas and know what to add to the articles and what to not add, and what to improve and source better? Do whe need to be "politicaly correct" even in a project that is not included in the ecyclopedia? Anyway, if you insist, then help me to NPOV it. Whadever it takes to be able to have a common ground where we can assemble, even if it means we must keep mainstreamers happy even in our projekt. --Striver 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the only compromise most people are willing to make is if you clearly define this project as limited to working on pages labeled conspiracy theories. I have no problem with a conspiracy project dedicated to working on 9/11 conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination theories or Nick Berg conspiracy theories but you clearly set your scope beyond that. Therein lies the major problem as I said above, we do not want original research on Zionism for example. Again, if you re-evaluated your scope, I think most users would not have a problem. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have enough original research on VFD these days without WikiProjects to promote it. PS You can write "strongest keep" all you like, your vote still only counts one. Agentsoo 01:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment Yeah, thats great remove the project since you dont like the subject... lets forget that there is articles about it, lets decide that those articles dont deserve a project, that is the most fair thing to do, isnt it? --Striver 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are many notable conspiracy theories (i.e. "Who really shot JFK?" and so forth). However, those articles only report on actual events and circumstances regarding the conspiracy. As has been stated, this project does not seem to exist for that purpose. Wikipedia is neither a place for original research, nor a soapbox. --ArmadniGeneral 01:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the Ur-Quan masters who beam instructions into my head through my teeth command it. Nandesuka 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV, etc. I think User:Striver would be more comfortable on Usenet, or running his own website. Binadot 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because Nandesuka's thoughts are beaming into my head (and because these pages only support original research -- but are those really my thoughts or . . . )--Noitall 02:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - conspiracy theorists can create a new theory of just about everything, drawing connection between any random details (which, to them, are never random or coincidental), meaning that every single article could end up with its own conspiracy addenda. They are likely to condemn this VFD as a part of a worldwide conspiracy of suppression by their favorite secret society or agency. There are some notable conspiracy theories, most others are irrelevant. - Skysmith 11:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Sasquatch. I believe Conwiki - The conspiracy wiki is where you should focus your efforts, Striver. --Quasipalm 13:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Sasquatch and the Illuminati and the Freemasons. --Several Times 14:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that's what this project will rapidly become if kept. ral315 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sasquatch. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, conspiracy theories = POV original research. JamesBurns 03:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to be related to Wikipedia work. arj 23:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theodorus Cantuariensis

Sorry, this should have gone in the latin wikipedia. There is already an english page (with an english title) on the same man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbook (talk • contribs) 2005-08-01 18:31:33 UTC.

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Angels and Demons. Splash 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Altars of Science

I am pretty sure that the significance of these altars of science are merely a plot element of Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. Avalon Bound 01:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably fancruft. AlbertR 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite to describe the altars as key elements of the novel. Got quite a few hits on Google, but most of them seem to be directly or indirectly related to the book. Whether or not this existed before the novel, I don't know. Someone could research this. DanMS 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. to my last: These monuments, which actually exist, are notable because they are an element of this very popular novel. I think it would be interesting to anyone who has read the book—and there are many of those. DanMS 02:13, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 01:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Simplified Bible

The copyright holder has kindly given us persmission to advertise his product. A clear case od self-promotion, delete--nixie 01:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Advertising. Delete. AlbertR 01:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Delete. Agentsoo 01:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though the copyright notice was very considerate. Mmmbeer 01:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. And I WONDER IF THE NEW SIMPLIFIED BIBLE USES ALL CAPS FOR REALLY IMPORTANT VERSES. Nandesuka 02:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Flowerparty talk 02:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Binadot 02:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete LOUDLY. -Splash 02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)q
  • Delete blatant advertising CanadianCaesar 02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Alex.tan 03:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice. A new English Bible translation, even a minor one, is probably noteworthy enough for an article. But this isn't what we'd need. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ral315 20:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. -Soltak 23:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but move bottom part to BJAODN. arj 23:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta Stone (Software)

Reads like an advert, and the huge list of awards (most very minor, e.g. magazine review scores) is factual but surely one-sided. Hard to separate relevant Google results from the rest, but the website has an Alexa rank of about 20000, so seems non-notable. I think delete but if not then it needs significant reworking. Agentsoo 01:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My first impression of this one is to delete as advertising. If someone can prove it's notable, then I'd consider changing my vote. AlbertR 01:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Cleanup and keep. I don't know if this is notable, but if someone rewrites it so it doesn't look like an advert, it should stay. AlbertR 02:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've used this software before in my old elementary school, and I've seen it elsewhere as well. Also, please make sure you use subst: when you create these subpages, to keep everything properly formatted, like this: {{subst:vfd2 ...}} Thanks. --ArmadniGeneral 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I absolutely agree that the page reads like an advertisement and needs massive cleanup. That being said, this is notable software that is pretty much in a league of its own. The market for language learning software is much smaller than for photo editors, but this is the Photoshop of its market. If that makes sense. Nandesuka 02:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
How notable is the language learning software market as a whole? I don't know, but if the market itself is not sufficiently notable to get in here then surely none of the programs within it are notable either. But If I have underestimated the notability of this program then I apologise and can only hope that the page gets cleaned up. Agentsoo 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, given the above comments. Although it's clearly advert-like material at the moment, so stubbify. Flowerparty talk 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I've made some edits to try and clean-up the advertisement-like material. --ArmadniGeneral 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename Rosetta Stone (software) with a lower-case S.—Wahoofive (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and keep. - meets basic 'i've heard of it' criteria = notable enough (IMHO) - if not cleaned up, then VfD again....... Petesmiles 10:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant advertising. Ought to be deleted and rewritten from scratch by a genuine neutral. Anadine 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. I have heard of it, too, so it's notable enough for me. I cropped the award list a bit to make the article more neutral. -- Marcika 13:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This is probably the most notable language learning software out there. Oh, and rename as per Wahoofive -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 14:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I never used the software, but I know that at least a few schools I've been to have/had it. It definitely is notable enough for WP. ral315 20:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable software. --Oldak Quill 20:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Rosetta Stone (software) - grubber 13:32, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Keep, and send to Cleanup. arj 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted: CSD A7" Joyous (talk) 02:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grace Edwards

Inspiring as she may be, there is not claim to notability, no context, and is entirely unencyclopedic.Mmmbeer 01:38, 1 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 as adspam. FCYTravis 07:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daytona Estate Jewelry

Non-notable jewelry retailers that seem to only do business in a flea market and maybe on eBay. --ArmadniGeneral 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Not notable, and advertising. Delete AlbertR 01:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete shameless nnadvert. Gets 22 useful Google hits. -Splash 02:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, advertising. Alex.tan 03:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not subject to deletion per deletion policy (notability should be irrelevant). arj 23:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graces birdie

Not notable, as far as I can tell. I can find nothing for "Grace Edwards" Birdie. This is a related article to Grace Edwards.Mmmbeer 01:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Flowerparty talk 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's vanity, plus, it's not notable. What a most perfectly, fantastically deletable combination! AlbertR 02:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If an article on a non-notable Australian artist is speedy deleted, shouldn't her artwork be speedy deleted as well even if it sells for up to $120. Delete.Capitalistroadster 02:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete overexcitable vanity. -Splash 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sigh. Alex.tan 03:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable by cursory Google search. Needs references. arj 23:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as clear patent nonsense. FCYTravis 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macromedia Flash Communication Server

Delete. This page consists solely of garbage text that is unrelated to the topic. Slicing 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as the article is currently constituted... obviously. Though, this is probably ok for a another attempt should the content match the title. Mmmbeer 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secret government

Reads like original research. Very POV. Perhaps, a copyvio too, but I can't source it. Mmmbeer 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it! A bit ambigous, but is a big topic. It appears to be a collection of observations of the recent(last 75 years) of American History. I like it, and vote to keep it. I can see this topic expanding fast. (Unsigned, by Lucky me. Note, user's first edit. --ArmadniGeneral 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete: I can't establish copyvio either. However, it's extremely POV, as you said. There are no sources (I doubt any credible ones exist), and almost definitely original research. --ArmadniGeneral 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the political equivalent of space intelligences. A conspiracy theory reported as fact, not encyclopedic. CanadianCaesar 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, and probable nonsense. Also, the author seems to subscribe to Wikipedia:Avoid using wikilinks... how annoying. Flowerparty talk 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, POV, unencyclopedic, borderline nonsense. Binadot 02:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or merge with conspiracy theory. --Fangz 20:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Merge is not necessary; conspiracy theory discusses what a conspiracy is, and gives examples. It does not give individuals a megaphone and a soapbox for them to spout their usually inane, and always POV theories from. ral315 20:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to conspiracy theory. (if keep, cleanup and change the article's name to S... G... (consp. theo.) José San Martin 00:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Various "secret government" do appear to be part of the conspiracy theory field, alongside with Secret Masters and the like; equivalent to grey eminences or power behind the throne. I'd suggest a mention in conspiracy theory or similar pages - Skysmith 08:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Only sourced theories should be at conspiracy theory. Gazpacho 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (but extensively cleanup); otherwise, merge @ conspiracy theory. JDR
    • Comment: I did a rewrite; moved most of the info into the talk page for a cleaup. JDR 18:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, original research. JamesBurns 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be a genuine conspiracy theorist concept. Send to cleanup and/or peer review for NPOV rewrite. arj 00:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Choi

University student. Doesn't seem notable. Probably vanity. Flowerparty talk 02:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (nn). Can't even userfy. Can we lose the picture too? Agentsoo 02:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Uni student who has a program on her campus station. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's a student and it needs a picture it probably isn't notable. -Splash 02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's vanity. 'nuff said. I think we can dump the picture too. AlbertR 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a shame, she's rather cute. Sadly, Delete. Friday 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Alex.tan 03:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. JDoorjam 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 20:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. DS1953 23:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the professor test. Notability is established via her involvement with Youth Live Radio. arj 00:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's bizzare. She's not even a professor! -Splash 00:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. If someone would like to merge and redirect, please be bold. Otherwise, if the decision is contested, I will be happy to relist the article for a new, and hopefully less confusing, vote. -- Essjay · Talk 06:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian literature

Speedy delete I think. Nonsense, advertisement, you name it... Agentsoo 02:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement, book review CanadianCaesar 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: as a review and advertisement. --ArmadniGeneral 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slowly, painfully, lingeringly. Neither being a book review or being an advert qualifies under any of the WP:CSD, and this is easily intelligble and certianly not hopelessly confused so isn't Wikipedia:patent nonsense either. All of which is rather unfortunate. -Splash 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)(vote changed)
  • Redirect as below. -Splash 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. It's adverising and it's also vanity. AlbertR 02:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect per Pburka. AlbertR 03:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess it comes under "advertisement"... Alex.tan 03:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to LGBT literature. Pburka 03:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the new article which is developing. Pburka 21:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LGBT literature; makes sense. Flowerparty talk 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above; good idea. Antandrus (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETEwhat is this? hippie-ville? we don't need this kind of questionable content here where anyone can access it--205.188.117.74 03:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not censored. CanadianCaesar 03:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Lesbian-related content is not "questionable". Bearcat 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect makes sense to me. CanadianCaesar 03:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect works for me, (although I think there is more than enough lesbian literature--distinct from male gay literature--out there for someone to write a decent article under this title in the future). Func( t, c ) 03:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Real article in the works, as per SamuelWantman, AlexR, and Outerlimits. (vote change) Func( t, c ) 20:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Rangerdude 03:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LGBT literature, you rich bastards. —RaD Man (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect until a real article is written.Keep A real article is being written. -- Samuel Wantman 08:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For the time being, redirect to LGBT literature. There is certainly material enough out there for an article on this, but this isn't it. -- AlexR 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC) vote changed after actual article was created
  • Keep, as it is now the beginning of a decent article. -- AlexR 09:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as Samuel Wantman and AlexR. -Axon (talk|contribs) 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now. As per multiple comments above. BlankVerse ∅ 12:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now and hold the space for a future real article. CDThieme 18:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and come back if this turns out to be worth writing a full article on. JDoorjam 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: although the topic could be legitimate, current (17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)) article is flagrant promotion. Peter Grey 17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with everybody else; the title is certainly encyclopedic, but the article is far from it. And even if the article were rewritten to be encyclopedic, this would not be its proper title; one specific novel by one specific writer is not the sum total of lesbian lit. Delete/redirect, and get someone with knowledge of the subject to work on a real article for this title. Keep rewrite, now a much better basis for expansion. Good job, Outerlimits! Bearcat 17:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LGBT literature. JamesBurns 03:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • lesbian and gay male literature are best discussed separately. I've replaced the book review which was originally nominated with some text and a possible framework for building such a discussion of lesbian literature. - Outerlimits 04:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. arj 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and develop. There's a lot to be written about this subject! --FOo 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Vote by PeteG; note that this is his first Wikipedia contribution outside of his own user pages and four attempts to redirect an old VfD discussion to a namespace article. Bearcat 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Yet again I change my vote. In light of recent edits, Keep CanadianCaesar 15:27, 8 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 & Redirect to Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword. Content has apparently already been merged (see nomination), thus deleting and redirecting. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canas (Fire Emblem)

Delete: Fire Emblem minor character, described on the main Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword page and not copyedited. It has been merged and should be deleted.--Zxcvbnm 02:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete First of all, Fire Emblem is not a CRPG. Second of all, Canas is a minor character that is not very important.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 & Redirect to Fimbulvetr.Essjay · Talk 06:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fimbulvter

Delete:Article name is mispelled (name is Fimbulvetr) and there is no information about it, it is a misleading page (the real article is at Fimbulvetr). Fire emblem cruft, should be deleted.--Zxcvbnm 02:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per above. --ArmadniGeneral 02:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you think it can be speedy deleted for no context? CanadianCaesar 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fimbulvetr if that's what it really means. -Splash 02:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Fimbulwinter: it's a reasonable misspelling of Fimbulvetr. --Carnildo 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn gamescruft. JamesBurns 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move. The Fire Emblem meaning of Fimbulvetr is now inaccessible due to redirects; there should be a disambig page or a notice on Fimbulwinter. arj 00:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Essjay · Talk 06:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farina (Fire Emblem)

Delete: This information in article is already in Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword and should be deleted. Keeping it is useless.--Zxcvbnm 02:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The end result of a merge is a redirect, not a deletion CanadianCaesar 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentIt would be useless to merge since it has the fire emblem tag on it. Otherwise, add the redirect.--Zxcvbnm 03:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't change my vote. I voted redirect. You marked my vote as a simple "Comment". You said it was already merged. Therefore, I thought this should be turned into a redirect. CanadianCaesar 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sorry, i rephrased my original statement. It was not a literal "merge" since the info is already in the main article.--Zxcvbnm 18:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 11:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn gamescruft. JamesBurns 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. arj 00:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • MergeNotable, however we should merge with the main page methinks or create a page for all the characters. Derktar 17:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 07:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Eurasian Supercluster

Not every use of cluster analysis adds a permanent concept to our vocabulary. This is a confusing neologism which gets zero hits at scholar.google.com and all hits at google.com are Wikipedia mirrors. It's confusing because there is a moderately more accepted, and different, usage of the term supercluster in genetics, see Supercluster (genetic). --Pjacobi 03:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've found an early (though rare, inconsistent, and probably a neologism at the time) usage of supercluster in this sense (of groups of human populations) by the pioneering researcher in the field (Cavalli-Sforza), and have edited Supercluster (genetic) to reflect this. I still do feel that introducing supercluster as a general synonym for race or macro-race is an unjustified neologism, though.--JWB 09:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article discusses two imporant papers, but without any context with respect to the whole theory, this article is pretty uninformative. One possibility would be be to merge with The Seven Daughters of Eve which is the book where this theory is described, but that article is pretty undeveloped, so it may not be anymore informative there.--nixie 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Label it with some needs verification tag. This is unlikely to be resolved w/o experts and these unlikely hang on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Essjay · Talk 07:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Frog (Harry Potter)

Delete-Has been merged with the main list of magical items in Harry Potter and should be deleted as cruft.--Zxcvbnm 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: 'Cruft' is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is an assertion that the material is not sufficiently notable, which is a deletion criterion. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect. Seems that if it's already been merged, there's no need for it to sit on VFD all week. ral315 20:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect since the merge has already been done, however when did notability become a deletion criteria (Wikipedia:Notability)? -- Lochaber 11:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fawcett5. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

===PETMA=== Speedied Fawcett5 04:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Nonsense. A Google search shows one hit for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals." The organization's webpage consists of a picture of a unicorn and nothing else. --Ichabod 03:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Ichabod. --Zpb52 03:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The unicorn looks a bit like a sheep. Pburka 03:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable CanadianCaesar 03:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just an excuse for an external link. AlbertR 03:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Like they said above. Alex.tan 03:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, preferably speedily, as an external link with feathers. Flowerparty talk 04:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization of Europe

Not a meaningful concept; virtually no content.--Pharos 03:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, provides little or no context per CSD:A1. Possibly worthy of a redirect to History of Europe or something similar. Flowerparty talk 04:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This could make a great article one day. Maybe even a featured article. But that day is not today. Redirect somewhere. A redirect can be rewritten as an article at a later time. CanadianCaesar 04:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hard to think of an appropriate redirect for this one. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real content; no real redirect other than the obvious Europe, which isn't necessary in my opinion. ral315 20:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps sometimes will create useful and informative article about the topic. Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this was filled with real, meaningful information it wouldn't merit a separate article from those already in existence regarding Europe and its history. -Soltak 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it had a little bit more information, i'd ask to Merge it into History of Europe until it became a full article of its own, but this isn't enough.Karmafist 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: For one thing, the Phoenicians colonized Africa. Colonization and Europe are both too broad to make a useful article. Not counting Stone Age migrations and conquests, very little proper colonization in Europe anyway. Peter Grey 18:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. arj 00:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 07:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Klausutis

Non-notable & potentially POV redirect

This name is a non-notable individual who died in Florida in 2001. The name is redirected to her employer at the time, then Rep. Joe Scarborough. Redirect appears to be for the purpose of routing attention about Klausutis' death to Scarborough, possibly for political or POV reasons. It also appears to be intended to augment a controversial sentence about Klausutis in the Scarborough article that is heavily opposed by many editors on the talk page there, and is currently the subject of RfC's and revert warring. This redirect was created by one of the main editors involved in the dispute and revert warring.Rangerdude 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. Delete - non-notable redirect. Rangerdude 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Lori Klausutis was not murdered. Mirror Vax 04:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I fixed the description above. Rangerdude 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Redirects for deletion belong at WP:RFD, not here. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 11 to keep, 15 to delete (including the nominator), and 1 to merge. -- BD2412 talk 04:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG

Following the precedence expresed in [1] and [2]. Delete All activity can be resolved in talk pages. (unsigned VFD by User:Striver.)

  • SPEEDY KEEP Striver is involved in WP:POINT Klonimus 05:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Karl Meier 07:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since the project seems to me to serve a useful purpose. DavidConrad 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, Strong Keep, the most transparently WP:POINT VfD I've seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. Babajobu 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - The project is about maintaining Wikipedia ideals like NPOV. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - seeks to restrict editing of Islam-related articles to an elitist group. Seems contrary to Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset #13 'Foundation Issues'- one of which is that anyone can edit any article on WP Cynical 13:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the originator of this page invited others to participate who have knowledge even though they might tend to favor a particular POV. In fact, one of those people has commented extensively on the talk page. --Noitall 20:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
This WikiProject does not seek to restrict editing of Islam-related article to any particular group. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, and this WikiProject can neither prevent that nor seeks to prevent that. --Zeno of Elea 23:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes it does. Here's their first rule
SIIEG members should:
1. be adequately familiar with one or more subjects related to Islam
Elitism. Plain and simple. --Cynical 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You are referring to guidelines for SIIEG membership. That is not an attempt to prevent anyone else from editing Islam-related articles. Babajobu 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
As Babajobu has pointed out, you are referring to SIIEG membership guidelines, you are not referring to guidelines on who can edit Wikipedia Islam-related articles. In any case, anyone can join SIIEG and membership is only revoked if the user is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia by administrators. The guideline that you refer to only serves the purpose of attracting Wikipedia editors who have enough famaliarity with the subject. We would like to have members who are well versed in Islamic literature because this is a requirement for successfully opposing the apologetic POV of certain Islam series articles. --Zeno of Elea 21:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Zeno's assertions seem reasonable. Keep. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Given that: the name of this project is mildly offensive and in bad faith (SIIEG pronounced "siege"! Who are we at siege against?); that it's goals should be the goals of all Wikipedians; that some of it's own membership seem to have been breached it's own mission statement and policies without similarly being admonished by the SIIEG membership; that it seems to single out a particular group of editors (e.g. liberal Muslims) for criticism in bad faith, based purely on their private religious and political beliefs; and that otherwise we already have Wikipedia Project: Islam for precisely this reason. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep In my short time here, I've been following the various debates on Islam-related articles, and I think I have a fairly neutral view of the situation. As far as I can tell both sides of this "debate" have bad-egg editors violating a number of Wikipedia policies, and both sides have reasonable and fair (if principled) editors. I think to sort this whole thing out the members of the latter group need to seek each other out across the aisle and make a real effort to reach some kind of consensus with each other. Otherwise it'll be more of the same edit-warring, personal attacks, etc. I could see SIIEG as being a means to either end. Given that the whole VFD system seems to be in a period of turmoil, I'd recommend keeping it for now, but bringing it back for deletion if it looses sight of it's (so far) reasonable and fair approach. byped 17:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that this is a good faith effort. --Zeno of Elea 00:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Noitall 00:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as their edits are in good faith. —thames 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Axon. JamesBurns 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV-encouraging magnet. Wholly inappropriate. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • For your information, Ril: POV magnet refers to an article with a disputable title. SIIEG is no article but open for all people, so no POV magnet. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'm not particularly happy with such projects (qv earlier debates on User:FACTS, for instance) since they only increase factionalism. However, this issue is broader than the existence of this page, and it may be something that requires broader community input, or ArbCom proceedings, or something like the Content Review mentioned in the RFAr/RFC. Radiant_>|< 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment From an outsider standpoint, this project does seem well intentioned, but I don't understand why this can't be done within the main Wikiproject group. Also, the acronym might cause some animosity. Karmafist 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
As a member of SIIEG, I'll agree that our acronym, or at least the pronunciation, may not be advisable. I personally don't feel under siege by anyone. But the project is legit. Babajobu 17:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The members whose names I recognise are strongly PoV-pushing Islamophobes. Deleting this won't stop the unfortunate effect that they're having on Wikipedia, but it will at least send a message. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    Please review WP:NPA and WP:POINT --Zeno of Elea 11:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    I have, have you? First, I didn't personally attack anyone (largely because I didn't specify any prson of group of people); secondly, deleting this page is not going to disrupt Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was first unsure about this. While there are certain users such as Germen whom you can compromise/discuss things with, most of the members of this group are serial reverters who add false information to many articles.Heraclius 03:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam; I can't see a legitimate reason to differentiate the two- we shouldn't have different Wikiprojects for different POVs on the same topic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is not an "Islamic organization", or at least it shouldn't be- it's a WikiProject open to all just like any other.--Pharos 07:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "we shouldn't have different Wikiprojects for different POVs on the same topic." Why, exactly? Is this an existing Wikipedia policy? If not, then it is clearly not an issue related only to this page and VfD is therefore not the proper channel for such policy decision making. --Zeno of Elea 11:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I believe that if this project has no strong POV as they say then it falls within WikiProject Islam and if it has a strong POV then it should deleted for that reason. gren グレン 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto Gren. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reluctantly. I see no purpose served by keeping both this and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. They're identical in scope. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • SIIEG is already a subproject of the Islam main project. SIIEG likes to balance non-Sunni and Shi'a islam as well as islam-directed critics in order to obtain a higher informational value of Wikipedia. So the scope is different. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I dont like seeing Shia Islam being used as an excuse for promoting anti Islamic agendas. Specialy not when they are called "Siege". Lets be honest, who is the one under siege, is it Iraq or USA? --Striver 14:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The acronym of the project is a coincidence, it doesnt mean anything. --Zeno of Elea 15:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh, so the link to siege is a coincidence and means nothing? Ill remeber to include that in the Coincidence theory article. --Striver 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, exactly. --Zeno of Elea 17:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Ok, so if the acronym ended as SIIEG, and hade nothing to do with the word "siege", why do we find this quote on the artilce?
The acronym SIIEG (pronounced "siege") stands for the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. SIIEG is a writers' guild specifically intended for Wikipedia editors of Wikipedia information relating to Islam.
    • All WikiProjects are required to comply with NPOV. There is no need for a WikiProject to "balance" one with the same avowed aims. Factionalism isn't sensible. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This VfD has been in progress for 7 days now, exceeding the 5 day lag time for VfD. This VfD should therefore be considered as concluded, and should be moved to the holding area at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old, and the VfD tag removed from the project page. A rough consensus has been not reached by any measure, therefore deletion cannot be carried out. --Zeno of Elea 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. This VfD is a transclusion on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_1, which has already been moved to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old. It will be closed soon, but further votes are permitted meanwhile. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Proto t c 10:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems fair to read this wikiproject as a POV fork. under WP:IAR though, it can be summed up as determinental to wikipedia community spirit, get rid of it.--Tznkai 18:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. community spirit does not mean banning subcommunities.mikka (t) 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    Did anyone say that it did? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    I was referring to the vote just above. A subcommunity has rights to exist and has rights to its POV, as long as it does not obstruct the NPOV of articles. An opposite position is arm twisting and "detrimental to community spirit" indeed. mikka (t) 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Quasipalm 14:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete __earth 16:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 07:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double A-side

  • Delete dicdef: a single whose B-side turns out to be a hit. Too vague to be a maintainable list.—Wahoofive (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't need another list for this. Redirect... to b-side I guess, since that's where a-side redirects to. (Although I can't help but find that utterly perplexing.) Flowerparty talk 04:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an accident of history. B-side was created in 2002, A-Side was created in 2004, and A-side was created in 2005. They were all merged into the oldest of the three. Uncle G 13:29:19, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Keep. or else merge with b-side. Just needs some expansion. Had 10 links to it before even created. Redwolf24 04:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable musical concept. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 05:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep important music concept, and something which I could easily imagine people looking up, as the meaning is hardly self-evident from the term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reminder: offering meanings of words or phrases is the job of Wiktionary.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Information is already contained in B-side. Transwiki to Wiktionary if they can use it, and redirect to B-side. Scott5114 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to B-side. -R. fiend 20:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to A-side... or apparently B-side? BTW a double A-side isn't just a single whose B-side turns out to be a hit, it's one where both tracks were released with equal emphasis, there may also be b-sides on the single. -- Lochaber 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • These various concepts are explained, in context (addressing the points made by Lochaber), in B-side. People are perhaps being mis-led by the article title. The article text discusses all of the concepts: 'A' sides, 'B' sides, 'double-A' sides and so forth. (A rename may be in order.) A-Side was merged there by its original author (who noted the overlap in the edit summary) back in January, and most of the other permutations simply redirect there. I concur with that anonymous editor. Merge to B-side. Uncle G 13:29:19, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • keep, notable form of record release. Kappa 17:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with b-side, especially since a-side also redirects there. --FuriousFreddy 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. arj 00:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranger Suite

Advertising. Brighterorange 04:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- agreed. --J. Hess 04:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Edwardian 04:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Punkmorten 12:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. arj 00:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gone Astray: The care and management of the Asian elephant in Domesticity

Delete. A one sentence article stating who wrote this non-notable book. Edwardian 04:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funk-Blues

Another imaginary music genre. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn genre. JamesBurns 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete practically non-existant genre. Punkmorten 08:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-verifiable substub. arj 00:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avior Clothing Co.

Advertising. Joyous (talk) 04:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Edwardian 04:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement for non-notable company. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Punkmorten 08:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. arj 00:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hogel

Neologism. Joyous (talk) 04:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • "He is now using the word as an experiment to see how words can spread through the public to become standard." Hmmm... love to help him, but Wikipedia can't help spread that word. Delete CanadianCaesar 04:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's actually how the word "Quiz" came about (circa the 60's, I think), and now it exists in a dozen languages at least. And if this word ever actually enters common usage, it won't be in such dire need of delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, quiz did become a word through such an experiment, but what does that have to do with whether Wikipedia should help in inventing new words? That was my point. CanadianCaesar 22:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, although I wouldn't be against honouring it BJAODN status. Flowerparty talk 05:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN! -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 14:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete. To prevent a repeat of the fiasco at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School, this should be interpreted as copy-and-pasting the contents of the article to the current subpage of WP:BJAODN, and then deleting the original article. For the purposes of determining VfD consensus, this vote should be considered a "delete" vote. --Carnildo 23:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probably not funny enough for BJAODN though. JamesBurns 03:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Stew

Band vanity/non notable. No mention on allmusic, can't find google hits specific to this group. Fawcett5 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence of notability CDC (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 13:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable. arj 00:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 07:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Globe artichoke.

Personal essay. --malathion talk 04:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup and fix -- We have articles on other foods like Apple, Banana, etc, and this article appears to be highly descriptive, not particularly POV (other than the first line). Artichoke is certainly a topic that merits an article in the Wikipedia. --Mysidia 05:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Mysidia seems to have missed Globe artichoke without the full stop. There do seem to be a few interesting and verifiable things in here about cultivation of the plant, so merge and redirect--nixie 05:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed... delete with the possible merging of some information into the main article --Mysidia 00:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Source problem -- This article is a mixture of text from the references. Some info could be merged, but it is not original writing so should be deleted. User:hleuszler 12:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any information which is an improvement on Globe artichoke although I added one of the external links from here to that article.Wegsjac 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing worth merging, and useless as a redirect. --Carnildo 23:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Seems to me it contains a lot more about how to grow them than does the alternative proposed to keep. But only want one article with virtually the same name.Sandpiper 08:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge per above. arj 00:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 07:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Lewis (philosopher)

Being a philosopher of science and seeking to show inconsistencies in an interpretation of quantum mechanics is not notable in itself. The article is about a real person and does not assert his notability: it has been deleted in the past, but not by vfd, and has recently re-emerged. --Mysidia 05:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Every philospher and physicist in the last 50+ years (including Einstein himself) has been "seeking to show inconsistencies" in quantum theory. Delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - see no reason to claim noteability, give him a few years and maybe a Nobel or two, then write an article :-) Vsmith 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Save - A google search for: "Peter Lewis", quantum , returns 776 hits. While a few are unrelated to Peter Lewis most refer to him. The number of hits for his name only increase if other combinations were searched for, e.g. "Lewis, Peter" quantum, or "Peter J. Lewis" quantum, etc. Not that I put a lot of stock into google searches when it comes to rating academics studying the intricacies of an incredibly complex and mathematical discipline. Peter Lewis is an active player in group of living philosophers attempting to achieve some understanding in regards to quantum mechanics. He is well published in highly respected philosophic journals. And while you might not find him notable enough for the Wikipedia encyclopedia, he does appear in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". I submit to Wikipedia that any philosopher who is notable enough to have their arguments/philosophy appear in such a prominent encyclopedia as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. --atfyfe 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above, and that it passes the college professor test. arj 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 09:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Children of the Mushroom

Short-lived 60's psychedelic band who had a hit in "some Southern Texas radio markets". Fails WP:MUSIC —Wahoofive (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn band. JamesBurns 05:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete: looks like vanity / non-notability (compare the photo's description to the name of the user who uploaded it, for instance), delete unless the band can be shown to meet WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty talk 06:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - aw - mushroom children. Gotta get to more than Texas. Vsmith 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonconsexual

Dictdef --malathion talk 05:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 05:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete tis not even a word -- *anon* 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a neoligism playing on nonconsentual and sex, or just a misspelling of the former? Delete--nixie 05:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. - Lucky 6.9 05:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Flowerparty talk 06:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism and bad attempt at being original. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 14:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. arj 00:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Postal Watch

Has only 589 Google hits, but appears to be a non notable site, no news coverage to speak of, appears to be an article soley made to advertise this website. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this appears to be an entry making fun of a non-notable website, not-encyclopedic.--nixie 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, everyone gripes about the PO, what's notable about that? Vsmith 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 07:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese and chart

Dicdef already transwikied to Wiktionary —Wahoofive (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, phrase with limited use. --nixie 05:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with UK Top 40. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, likely search term. Kappa 17:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a well know classification of music, particularly amongst UK univeristiy and college students and Cheese is a term often used at some night clubs to describe this sort of music too. It certainly shouldn't be redirected to UK Top 40 as, in general, not all top 40 songs would be classed as 'cheese'. Evil Eye 12:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, notability not established. JamesBurns 03:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. If someone would like to merge, please be bold. Essjay · Talk 07:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 16th Street West

Non-notable streetcruft. There are probably thousands of cities with a 16th Street West; this one is not particularly notable outside of Minot, ND 23skidoo 05:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - This street is not really worthy of an article. Also, if we were making articles for city streets, it would be unfair for Minot to have the 16th Street West article when there are likely more famous "16 Street West"s in the country. --MatthewUND 05:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MatthewUND --Alan Au 07:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't NYC have a "16th Street West"? or is that "West 16th Street"? Top google hits are in other cities ofcourse. Usrnme h8er 08:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to a disambiguated title or merge to the city. --SPUI (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The streetcruft is back. -R. fiend 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Streetcruft. --Carnildo 23:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move merge to the city.
  • Move merge to the city. While not important outside of Minot, it is vital to the city itself. Doesn't deserve own article, however. --StupidSteeno 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The other 16th Street Wests could be added later. arj 00:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move content to Minot, North Dakota/16th Street West - There's some useful information here, but merging directly into the city page is going to create problems, it's big enough as it is. --AlexWCovington (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shashwati

Foreign dicdef for a word not notable in English. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete since this isn't a geneology site, either. - Lucky 6.9 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List_of_Indian_given_names. --Alan Au 07:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but perhaps add name to abovementioned list. --DavidConrad 10:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is no dictionary Manik Raina 12:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef, genealogy. JamesBurns 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, foreign dicdef. arj 00:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 07:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore gay venues: historical, minor

There's nothing in this article of encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This list is set to get longer and longer as the years go by and serves as a chronicle of the efforts of Singaporean gay entrepreneurs who tried their best to make it but did not. After a period of time, it will be a study of the pitfalls of business plans in a unique context.Groyn88 05:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sounds like you're not holding out much hope for the entrepeneurs. ;) If the article actually discussed some historic venues and then went on to explain why said venues are historic now, I'd reconsider the nomination. It sounds like you're waiting for the venues to become historic at some future point. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic. I have my doubts about Category:Minor Singapore LGBT articles too. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • merge: With Singapore Manik Raina 12:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just delete Don't merge trivia into a major article. Osomec 17:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is also unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move into Singapore LGBT life and culture Klonimus 03:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 07:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raees Amrohvi

Apparent name vanity-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Amrohvi and file under List_of_most_popular_family_names#India. --Alan Au 07:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possible to add this to said list, but unless several people with their own articles and this name can be found, this does not deserve its own page. Frankly, the signature at the bottom of this page says it all. Usrnme h8er 08:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef, vanity, genealogy. JamesBurns 03:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing for nobody

Neologism, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sticking with speedy delete as link spam. Just so long as this goes away. - Lucky 6.9 06:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV rant CanadianCaesar 06:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Needless, POV. --Bcshell 07:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though it'd be fun to see someone attempt to remove the POV portions. Also, unable to verify notability; Google only provides 5 hits. --Alan Au 07:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the POV portions were removed, there would be nothing left. Delete --DavidConrad 10:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now. Punkmorten 08:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jode Rago

Not important. JamesTeterenko 07:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Since there's no user account to Userfy to, I'm inclined to Delete. --Alan Au 07:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established CanadianCaesar 07:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominating for speedy deletion. This page is vanity, plain and simple. Celzrro 01:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 09:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Cartel

Non-notable, no useful content, possible vanity. Sandstein 07:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete : The article, in it's current, unhelpful and paltry state provides no useful information about this band. In it's current state, it should be deleted. Manik Raina 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity Usrnme h8er 12:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious band vanity. Punkmorten 08:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Party of Alberta candidates, 2004 provincial election

Page is not nessesary and looks like an abandon project anyway. The list of Green party candidates is avalible else where, such as the Alberta general election, 2004 or individual pages on electoral districts. I would suggest if there really needs to be another list of 2004 candidates, it should be moved to a subsection of the Green Party of Alberta page. Cloveious 07:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • As an Albertan, I can agree it's redundant. Redirect to Alberta general election, 2004. CanadianCaesar 09:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. As per above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 14:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, else redirect. Ambi 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This kind of thing was specifically proposed and accepted by VfD consensus as a solution to the proliferation of articles on unelected political candidates (specifically given the fact that a small but vocal minority on Wikipedia feels that just running for political office should be deemed sufficiently notable for an article.) Keep on the grounds that articles of this type arose from a VfD discussion in the first place. Bearcat 23:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this style of page was created after a long discussion as an alternative to creating individual pages for each candidate in an election. Homey 16:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are already several pages like this on Wikipedia, and vfd precedent clearly states that their existence is permitted. I grant that this particular entry is somewhat "bare bones", but it has the potential to grow into something larger. Having a set of mini-bios for future reference certainly won't hurt the project. CJCurrie 22:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of the Alberta Greens article as part of a series (1993, 1997, 2001) •Zhatt• 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn candidates. JamesBurns 03:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Homey, CJCurrie and Bearcat above. Ground Zero 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Spinboy 00:59, 9 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 23:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf of Urabá

the artilce is about discovering of Pacific Ocean, no mention of Gulf of Uraba Slawojarek 08:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - major cleanup and replace the content with an article about the geographic location. The conquistador is already covered in Vasco Núñez de Balboa. Usrnme h8er 09:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite - real place. I've added a bit more on the location (more is needed, though). Grutness...wha? 01:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and thanks Grutness for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks go to User: Usrnme h8er - I'd never have spotted it if it hadn't turned up in the geo-stubs when he started the rewrite! Grutness...wha? 02:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio. Essjay · Talk 07:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Esquivel

Vanity if ever I did see. Delete. --Celestianpower talk 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio, from [3]. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Good going, Blu, but you're supposed to sign the copyvio tags- one of the rare occasions (might be the only, I don't know), where you can apply your signature to the actual articles. CanadianCaesar 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite.Andycjp 3rd 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 --Allen3 talk 00:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Jets Down

Non notable, non-verifiable band. Google search for "All Jets Down" results in only two hits, none relating to the band. Delete. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • allmusic has never heard of them either.
  • Delete Friday 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --OntarioQuizzer 21:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Punkmorten 08:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 03:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mytrackster

Ad, not notable. No google hits for MyTrackster. The article Trackster should suffer the same fate. Thue | talk 09:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - as advert Usrnme h8er 09:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 404 Not Found, says my browser. Could it be someone is funnin' us? Denni☯ 21:34, 2005 August 1 (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 default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 07:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skydsl

Posting this for vfd to either get rid of it as marketting (advert) or majorly improve quality. The current article is written from the 1st person: "USB boxes are recommended and offered by us".

  • Delete - Usrnme h8er 09:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like advertisement to me. Manik Raina 13:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after major cleanup and removal of all needless technical info/marketing. --Several Times 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Major Cleanup. --OntarioQuizzer 21:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lou I 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Utterly Speculative, un-maintable list with very poor / unverifiable sources - basically original research / wanton guesswork Petesmiles 09:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - to be realistic,this list would have to include only admitted and diagnosed cases. Everything else, including references to historical people, are pure rumormongering, speculation and nonsense - Skysmith 11:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic. ADHD is a new diagnosis and it's complete speculation to go back through history purporting to diagnose notable sufferers - though I understand why campaigning and advocacy groups would want to do this. David | Talk 11:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up I agree with 'no original speculation' - but there could be a list of admitted case here - followed by a list clearly marked as 'cases suggested by notable advocacy groups' (with references included) - that wouldn't be original research or speculation - but a record of the opinions of and research of others --Doc (?) 14:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And maybe a title change -- how does List of famous people purported to have ADHD sound? =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable and pov. Osomec 17:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hard to verify, thus impossible to maintain. Such list would also give pretty low value to the reader. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per David. Courtkittie 21:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research/speculation. --Carnildo 23:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although every entry has a citation, unfortunately the trail immediately grows cold as the citations are all to web pages that simply list names without giving any evidence whatsoever that the people named have ADD. It's just not good enough to cite what is itself an unsourced list. List_of_people_believed_to_have_been_affected_by_bipolar_disorder is a somewhat similar list but for the most part the citations there are to verifiable news stories, or biographies, or books written by by mental health professionals. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Problems with verification, maintaining, and list could be considered libelous. Peter Grey 17:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, but with commentary. I feel that a good list article could be written about famous people who have been thought to/alleged to/purported to have ADD/ADHD; it would need to exercise at least some selectivity, so that we don't include every single person ever nominated by any source, but with that as a ground rule, I believe that a good list article could exist, contrary to what other votes have said. We don't have to verify that the person had ADD/ADHD, we just have to verify that there is a prominent body of opinion that the person had it. The reason I am abstaining, however, is that I don't want to pass judgement on whether this article reaches that standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Peter Grey. Kaibabsquirrel 09:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter speculation. But if anyone wants to improve it per Antaeus / Doc Glasgow's suggestions, I'd reconsider. - PhilipR 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert McMallin

Non-notable individual, all I could find on him on Google was a small uninformative website dated 2004. --Alexwcovington (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that he is at all notable. Anadine 11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Article makes no claim to notability, so perhaps a speedy delete is in order. Agentsoo 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article stands. Hall Monitor 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Practice Outline

Advertisement ? Manik Raina 11:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Advertisement. Delete. Agentsoo 12:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Á
  • Delete, a new user experimenting Zeimusu | (Talk page) 12:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also MAX FORDHAM PLL and The running practice. Punkmorten 12:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Also Practice outline and Sub-committees. In fact all creations of this user. Ive marked some I believe meet speedy criteria. Delete all Zeimusu | (Talk page) 12:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, Usrnme h8er 13:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Even with the sockpuppets discounted, it is still only 52% delete. Essjay · Talk 07:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military of the European Union

An inaccurate and misleading page - the European Union doesn't have any military. This page just directs users to articles on the armed forces of individual member states. JW 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete : The page is misleading (as has been pointed out). This information could be added to the page of the european union under a (perhaps) new section called Military which could have these links. Manik Raina 12:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page can be helpful for people who mistakenly think that the EU has its own military. Perhaps there could be a paragraph at the top explaining that the EU does not have its own military, but the member states do. Coffee 13:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - since when has Wikipedia accepted articles about things that don't actually exist. There is no such thing as 'Military of the European Union', so we shouldn't have an article about it Cynical 13:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well that's a pretty pointless article too then. David.
  • Yes it is. Maybe someone should nominate that for VfD as well: its existence is potentially misleading. Delete. Robert A West 18:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As noted above there is no seperate EU force distinct from that of its constituent members, although these do sometimes serve under the banner of EU peacekeepers. That said they still aren't EU military forces & the article doesn't deal with that anyway. AllanHainey 13:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The EU has no military arm and there are no plans for there to be one either. Therefore as this is an encyclopedia this article should not exist. It only confuses matters. David. 1 August 2005
  • Delete We shouldn't have an article about a non-existent military. Osomec 17:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless somehow the fact that the EU doesn't have a military becomes a major topic of discussion in international news. (Although the first sentence is classic: "The European Union does not have its own military." I can imagine a Kangaroos native to Ohio article that started the same way.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Western European Union. Ben-w 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Ben-w. Actually, Western European Union should point to this article. It is quite interesting topic, not for the militarism itself but rather for political ploys around it. Pavel Vozenilek 21:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think that would be appropriate because the members of the Western European Union are not the same as those of the EU. 81.131.155.161 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why have articles on something that doesn't exist --Sophitus 21:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete,the Military of the European Union is no match for the Mahdi Army. Klonimus 03:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to European Security and Defence Policy, that being the closest equivalent. EU does not have its own military force, but there is lots of suggestions about joined military exercises, European Rapid Reaction Force and so on in the terms of the policy. If somebody would be looking for information about European military cooperation (or attempt thereof), that would be the relevant articles - Skysmith 08:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge/redirect. I've made it have a paragraph about the various military things the EU is doing (the relationship with the WEU, EUFOR in Bosnia, the Rapid Reaction Force). None of the articles mentioned seem to have this sort of overview, if I've missed one merge/redirect, otherwise keep. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: because there is a little more to "Military of the European Union" than just saying there isn't one. For the same reason I would disagree with redirecting. Peter Grey 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The issues you are referring to are already discussed properly in other articles including European Security and Defence Policy. JW 11:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a title someone might reasonably search on, and the disambiguation serves a useful purpose. Peter Grey 11:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, User:Peter Grey has a valid point. JamesBurns 03:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep sometimes something not existing is as notable as existing. Other articles in WP on things that don't exist include 2008 and Year zero -Acjelen 03:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - But the title gives the impression those armed forces are somehow under the command of the EU, which is incorrect and misleading JW 14:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
A valid point which the article should probably emphasize a little more. Peter Grey 03:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 68.23.100.49 22:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 68.23.36.19 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Original article written by 68.23.45.223. Presumably, one or both of the above is the original author. JW 11:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 68.72.116.9 22:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You only have one vote. JW 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 68.251.208.158 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By continually posting fraudulent votes you are likely to have invalidated your only genuine one. JW 22:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 68.72.134.202 23:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The running practice

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MAX FORDHAM PLL, MAX FORDHAM LLP, Practice_outline, Practice Outline, The running practice, Running of the practice, The LLP, and Image:Benefits Policy.pdf

  • Delete: New user experimenting.--Zxcvbnm 12:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unclear page. Manik Raina 12:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Formatted like a copyvio, but I can't find any sources. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note duplicate article at MAX FORDHAM LLP. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the lot. (and the duplicate at Practice_outline) -- Longhair | Talk 13:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: -- add The running practice to that list... - Longhair | Talk 13:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
And The LLP. Leh sigh.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Added all pages not marked for speedy authored by User:Lasibiede. This is all but ridiculous.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 13:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Angela. 14:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I have emailed my personal contact at Max Fordham with a request that he find the culprit and tell them to stop. -- RHaworth 21:26:29, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete - four titles have been blanked by their author this morning. I take this as a request for speedy deletion. Don't forget the PDF (noted above). -- RHaworth 12:08:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Punkmorten 08:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - The author is blanking these pages and obviously does not disagree with VfD. Usrnme h8er 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of DVDs with audio description

On the talk page, the creator says "I moved the list of DVDs with audio description from my site to Wikipedia because it's too laborious for me to update the list, I'm always behind-- sometimes up to a year, and description providers should be updating the list."

This page and its sublists have not been meaningfully updated since they were created in November 2004. It's unmaintainble, unnecessary, unencylopedic. This VFD entry is also for

  • List of DVDs with audio description - Region 1
  • List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - English
  • List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - French
  • List of DVDs with audio description - Region 2 - German.

I hope that's all right... Coffee 12:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator reasoning. I'm starting to like lists less and less. Categories, now, those work well. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think a list of DVDs with descriptive audio for the visually impaired is a valuable reference-- and there aren't that many of them (of the hundreds of DVDs in my collection, only three have this feature), so the list isn't likely to become overly unwieldly. But we need people to actually update this thing to make it viable rather than relying on others to do the work, so my proposal is to give it a conditional keep and revisit this in a few months if no one has expanded the lists noticably within that time. 23skidoo 13:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I can see how the information is useful, but the list doesn't seem to have been updated since November 2004. It looks to have been dumped here by its original author and I can't see how anyone's going to be interested in maintaining it. It also whiffs of original research. Flowerparty talk 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps we should add "Dumpsite for your pet projects when you grow tired of them" to WP:NOT. This is unlikely to ever be kept up-to-date enough to be a useful reference for anyone. The American Foundation for the Blind lists resources. Robert A West 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Robert that a new entry should be added to WP:NOT. -R. fiend 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminant information, etc. --Carnildo 23:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Proto t c 09:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep: I am the originator of this page. Indeed it seems almost nobody has touched it since I posted it (or the regional variants). This is pretty strong evidence that people interested in DVDs accessible to the blind just aren't interested enough to maintain a list, which should be surprising but isn't. Nonetheless, unless somebody can show me a Wikipedia policy page that states that Lists must always be kept up to date (within what timeframe?), I see no reason to delete the pages. They were true and accurate as of their origination date. However,
    • I do firmly disagree that the page is "unencyclopedic," a sort of catchall criticism; Wikipedia has innovated in the domain of encyclopedias by encouraging lists, something I support. The list was encyclopedic when it was created!
    • As for "unmaintainable," clearly the page is maintainable; it's just that nobody wants to bother.
    • "Unnecessary" is clearly false.
    • I certainly don't understand how this list might be deemed "original research" (an unusual pejorative) when a list of, say, all the gay films in the world isn't (to use an example of an actively-maintained list).

So let's leave it for a while and see if conditions improve. This is the sort of thing that a few E-mails (especially to blind mailing lists) could remedy. (Also, could somebody tell me how to put a timestamp in my .sig here? Yes, I checked the help files and still didn't find it.) Joe Clark

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 --malathion talk 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three_Dozer_Build

  • Delete Not really a 'strategy' at all, as the decision to build two 'dozers' rather than three does not have nearly the same effect in C&C Generals as the article makes out. Not separate enough from the game to deserve its own article, not important enough in the game to deserve inclusion in the article about the game Cynical 13:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Earlier today, I did a major reorganisation of this page to make it more encylcopaedic and factually accurate. Firstly, the two v three dozer thing is of massive importance - have you ever played the game online? It is one of the first decisions the player makes, ans is thus key to his/her future success. It clearly is a strategy by any reasonable definition of the word. The stuff about separate and important I leave to others to decide. Batmanand 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am dubious that a particular strategy in a computer game, even a quite popular one, ought to be in a separate article. Delete or Merge into an article about the game as a whole, unless there is significant evidence that this has becoem a metaphore and has significant usage outside the context of this particular game. DES (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
More Information You could cookie-cut this page into just about any recent strategy game (Dawn of War et al), replacing the name of the 'build unit'. It's not specific to Generals, so it can't be merged, and doesn't have significant usage outside of the game so is undeserving of its own article Cynical 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A strategy element for a single game does not strike me as notable, and an article that attempts to teach such a strategy, for any game verges on WP:NOT. strategies common to many games, such as rushing deserve articles, and perhaps a strategy such as this could be merged into a similar page. --Icelight 21:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 23:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am interested as to where on 'What Wikipedia is not' you found "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide" Batmanand 08:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete And if there isn't a 'Wikipedia Is Not a Strategy Guide' then we should add it now. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, useful illustration of game strategy. Kappa 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Pure Pwnage.  Grue  11:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid entry on game strategy, we have other articles on wikipedia like this so why would the discussion be any different to keep this? The reorginsation of the article has done it justice. Also, as Cynical said, this strategy could be applied to many RTS games by just replacing the word 'dozer', as such merging it would not be a great idea. --Vanguard 13:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a strategy guide, this is an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an often used strategy, and is as mentioned also used as a noun to call someone by, as is newb or n00b. This should be no different as those listings remain. --GenDeathRaiser 06:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Pure Pwnage is, but 'Three Dozer Build' is definitely not. Is there anyone here who has ever been called a 'three dozer build' when playing Generals? Cynical 07:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason that a very good encyclopaedia should not refer to popular computer game strategies, just as a good encyclopaedia would detail common chess openings, tactics in poker, or formations in football. Surely, it is the strength, rather than the weakness, of Wikipedia that it includes such a breadth of information? Bastin8 15:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not educational in anyway, therefore useless to Wikipedia. Stereoface
  • Keep. I've never played the game, but I found the article informative Rast 05:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Strategy of any kind is a massive field. Stereoface, please define educational. First, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - C&CG:ZH players included. Second, it is not useless to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should encompass the whole of human experience. Postscript: I have been called a tridozer, though not a three dozer build(er). -Anonymous Coward, 2027 hours local, 7 Aug 05. Victoria, BC, Canada.
    • Invalid You have to register an account and login to participate in VfD Cynical 13:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Anons are allowed to participate in Vfd, I have reversed your striking out of the contribution. Closing admins will decide how much if any weight should be given to their votes. Please don't bite the newbies. Kappa 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-- Admittedly, the Page has issues, but I think that if someone were to take the time to overhaul it we could get a page that describes the use of building units in RTS type games. It has potential, just not in its current form. TomStar81 03:10, 9 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 --Allen3 talk 00:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibully

Do we really need this page ? I thought Wikipedia existed to tell us about the world rather than itself. Manik Raina 13:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, why do we have a category called Category:Wikipedia_culture? Isn't it there so that wikipedia culture can be told to the rest of the world? If the wikibully page is deleted, even though it represents real wikipedia culture, as experienced by at least one wikipedian, namely me, then using your logic, the entire category called Category:Wikipedia_culture and all articles in it like, Wikiwidow, WikiGnome etc., need to be deleted as well.
We, peaceful wikipedains, need the wikibully page, so that when one of us experiences the horrific feeling when he is wikibullied, he knows that there's some place he can turn to, and register the wikibully as such, so that the wikibully cannot continue his anti-social behaviour indefinitely, unchecked, unnoticed and unabated, hidden among the ocean of user talk pages, and other vandalized user pages all across wikipedia.
Once the spotlight is on the wikibully's deeds, and all wikipedians know about him, in most cases, once confronted by a multitude of victims of his, the wikibully would simply give up his bad act, at least that's my hope and desire. Because most people, when shown the ugly face they show others, in a mirror, don't like what they see and simply learn a new thing: tolerating others' views even though they may be different from their own. That's what civil society is all about. Demolition Man 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia obsession about Wikipedia is nothing new. I say keep it -- it's part of the culture. Or delete all Wiki--things but that would be no fun. Momenchance 15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've never come accross this term, wikipedia articles should be used to document existing facts, not spread ones you just made up. Show me extensive use of this term and I'll be happy to change my vote. Usrnme h8er 15:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Wikipedia_culture (mostly) contains pages in the Wikipedia: namespace that have been a part of Wikipedia culture for a long time and are more or less well-known to many veteran Wikipedians. Maybe some of them don't belong in the category, but that is neither here nor there. If there is conflict with another user, there are many other, better places to register your dispute or discontent with that user: WP:RFC, WP:RFAr, WP:VIP, Wikipedia:Wikimediation, or bring it directly to an admin that you trust. "Registering" another user on a big list of "bad people" is terribly uncivil and, IMO, un-Wiki, especially when there are so many other ways to solve your problems. Delete. Alternately, this could be moved to Wikipedia:Wikibully, where its status as some sort of policy proposal should be made clear, but that's probably unnecessary because such a policy would never gain acceptance. android79 16:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think I like the spirit in which this article has been written. But I dislike the idea of having one big bad list of bad wikipedians like android79 has stated above. Keep the article but either lose the bully list, or may be, there could be a process in which proof of bullying is presented from the alleged bully's edit histories that he has been running around mouthing off peaceful wikipedians, minding their own business and the bully is given adequate warning to cease and desist from bullying and once warned if he continues to bully, he is put on the universal bully list for all to see, alongwith evidence of his bullying nature. Yes, I think I really like this idea. Whirling Dervishes 18:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is exactly what Requests for Comment are for. There is no need for a separate process for "bullies." android79 19:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not belong in the main namespace. humblefool® 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a seldom-used WikiWord that has no place in the main namespace. Or I'll beat you up and take your lunch money. Lord Bob 19:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • hahaha, that's funny. Anyway, I'm for definitely keeping this article. The term wikibully may be new to wikipedia, but bullying behavior is by no means foreign or new to wikipedia and I can assure you that I have been bullied and I have seen other users being bullied who were too weak to stand up for themselves or simply didn't have time to fight back and some of them seem to have quit wikipedia because wikipedia seems to have no way to easily spot and remedy bullies and bullies' standard harsh methodology of forcing their views down everyone else's throats. All bullies basically have the same negative attitude and it's time we did something forceful about it, that is specific to bullying behavior. If a similar policy was enacted at Columbine, I'm sure the Columbine massacres would never have taken place at all, because the bullying behavior at its root would've been nipped in the bud.

Those users who are voting to delete imho, are either not active contributors or if they are, then they haven't tackled some of the really controversial pages on wikipedia, where people literally become vicious with their attacks and the discussion can hardly be called civil at all.

The same minority of wikipedians, displaying bullying tendencies, are seen spreading their message of hate, with most normal users too busy with their lives to go after them using the lengthy wikipedia processes. There should be simple and straight forward way to deal with bullies on wikipedia.

Take a look at this scenario:

  1. A bully harasses another wikipedian for something, like inserting comments that he, the bully, dislikes or does not share.
  2. The user warns him, that he should change his hostile attitude and stop his threats, and the user reminds the bully, that through the bully's edit history, the bully is digging his own grave by continuing to bully the user.
  3. If the bully does not stop, his name is submitted somewhere along with a list of his bullying edits gleaned from his edit history.
  4. The bully is then officially warned by an admin to stop his bullying and shown the bully's list of bullying edits as proof which is undeniable.
  5. It would be a completely insane bully who still does not get the message and still does not stop from bullying. Most bullies would stop bullying at this stage.
  6. The bully would learn the lesson that bullying does have negative consequences and also that no one likes a bully.

Therefore, I say keep it. The Bulldozer 19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

    • This is quite amusing coming from a user with a grand total of 10 edits, most of which being personal attacks on Talk:Kashmir. android79 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone wants this in the WP namespace I don't really care (I'm not endorsing it though) but not as an article. And let's NOT see the red List of wikibullies turn blue, okay? -R. fiend 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might be an interesting Wikipedia:Wikibully article someday. But this article is nothing close to what is encyclopedic (or even deserves to go in the WP namespace). ral315 20:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you to those people who are supporting to keep the wikibully and especially for taking the time to express their views on it, much better than I did. If there are no objections, is it alright if I move the wikibully page to Wikipedia:Wikibully (as suggested above by a couple of people)? The discussion can continue there if needed. Demolition Man 20:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally, I disagree with doing so. For one thing, no moves should be done EVER during a VfD; it messes up link structure on VfD pages. If the consensus is to move to Wikipedia:Wikibully, then an admin will do so. Otherwise, let the VfD run its course. In any event, if it were to be removed, much of it would have to be rewritten as a "How not to be a Wikibully", "How to deal with Wikibullies", etc. ral315 20:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care which namespace you move it to, just as long as you don't delete it. Someone like me, whose EACH & EVERY edit to date has been reverted by militants, knows full well what it means when gangs of wikipedians hound you and you are running like a fox being hunted. I also want to suggest that a direct policy be created by wikipedian authorities, just to discourage bullying behaviour. Where does one go to suggest to them that such a policy be enacted, with this page as a guideline? Lastly, keep this page or else, I'll hunt you down and show you my ugly side. lol. A big keep. Crazy Little Woman 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (disclaimer: For the seriously paranoid, my threat was only a joke!)
  • If all your edits are reverted that probably says more about you than about "wikibullies". Your edits, as far as I can tell, hardly inspire confidence either. In fact, I see no edits to articles in your edit history. -R. fiend 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Inspiring confidence in unrelated readers was not my intention when I submitted my suggestions to those editors to get a grip and stop trying to kill each other. I was trying to shock them into seeing the folly of their actions. Besides, the wikibully article is not about me or any other single wikipedian. Crazy Little Woman 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's already policy in place to deal with the sort of behavior you are describing. WP:NPA, to name one such policy. android79 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Having a mere policy with no easy way for an entry level wikipedian to pursue it, does no good. It's a lot like the UN passing resolutions against a dictator, but doing absolutely nothing to remove him from power. WHERE WAS THE UNITED NATIONS, WHEN OUR PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WAS SCREAMING FOR THE WORLD'S HELP TO REMOVE THAT CRIMINAL SADDAM HUSSAIN FROM POWER? WHERE WAS IT? PLEASE TELL ME. WP:NPA is too slow to control bullies. Plus, like the United Nations, it has no teeth. Crazy Little Woman 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A bit off topic, but if you really need an answer: they were behaving intelligently, unlike some people. Hope that clears things up for you. -R. fiend 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm dignifying your personal attacks with an answer - just to let you know, you are confirming my earlier suspicion that wikipedia, even though an American site, is now fully infested by anti-American, anti-Republic, anti-Capitalism and anti-Freedom fascists and commies, most of whom hate America. Let me guess, you are not even a Christian, now, are you? What was it you said? You don't even believe in God, you believe in that jackass Darwin? Well, I'm not surprised to hear that - not one bit. Crazy Little Woman 03:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't exactly recall saying I don't believe in God, at least not here, but I will admit I do not believe in superstition, including religion, nor tribalism, including patriotism, nor do I even believe absolute freedom exists, and I certainly people talk about it without having any idea what it means. I am certainly not a commie or a fascist, and as for Darwin, well, I generally believe he existed, which is more than I can say about God. America is an awful big thing to hate wholesale, but I don't like nations in general. Nor am I overly fond of people, as a species, come to mention it. Political assasinations. Now those are OK. -R. fiend 04:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Threatening the life of the leader of the free world is not a joke. You are this close to landing in the slammer my little foolish friend. Aren't you aware that the American secret service does not allow threats to be made against the President, even in jest. People are interrogated and imprisoned routinely in my country for saying what you just did (which I'm not even going to repeat). The only thing of note that you just blurted out above, is that may be, just may be, somewhere there's a little part of America, that you don't want to see eliminated from the face of the earth. Thank you so much for that! May be I should call the white house, and ask the President that he declare August 1st, a national holiday from now on, since it was on this day that your majesty gave his permission to America to continue to exist? Crazy Little Woman 04:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall threatening anyone's life. I just said political assassinations weren't such a bad thing. Presidents Reagan and Bush seem to agree (executive orders notwithstanding); they tried to kill Quaddafi and Hussein, respectively. Fine with me, but unfortunately they killed all the wrong people. I think if people killed the leaders of nations rather than the poor dupes who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time the world would be better off. Then again it might be better off if no one killed anyone, but that might be too much to ask for. Oh, and perhaps I should have mentioned another thing I don't believe in is treason. -R. fiend 04:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
America kills only the right people. Ever hear of the Lockerbee Plane bombing? It was that assh*** Quaddafi who did that. Ever heard of the invasion of Kuwait and the gasing of thousands of innocent civilians of his own country as well Iranians? It was that other assh*** Hussein who did that. Ever heard of the tactical nuclear missiles that the soviets dared to park on America's doorsteps? It was that son of a bitch Castro who let them do that. I'm beginning to dislike you and your ultra libral views immensely. Please remember, that it was our boys in WWII who freed that bowl of dust known as Europe, a continent that loves to hate America. USA handed Europe its freedom and prosperity on a silver platter. And what do you give us in return? Pure and unadulterated contempt. Your last entry about treason, better not be a jab at me. I wear an American flag with pride. I wave my American flag from my American car with pride. I have an American flag waving from my front porch at all times. If I wasn't slightly disabled, I would have joined the military and killed all those sons of bitches in Afghanistan who attacked my country on 9/11 and that cunt called Usama bin Laden would have seen his intestines pulled out by me, while he was still alive. I have a daisy cutter in my basement with America's enemies name written all over it. Crazy Little Woman 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I only noticed this staggeringly hilarious part of the VfD just now. Man, this is a hoot. This is just about the most entertaining thing on the freakin' wiki! Still, reluctant as I am to suggest reducing comedy, everybody remember: don't feed the trolls. Lord Bob 05:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the only thing funnier would have been if the US had let Europe become Nazi paradise. Now that would have been a real laugh!!! Crazy Little Woman 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm enjoying this immensely. I know one isn't supposed to feed the trolls, but some trolls are really hard not to feed. I guess I should call it quits, though. I've gotten in a few similar discussions in the past, and they really just don't end. Qvod volimvs facile credimvs. -R. fiend 05:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm willing to grant that point. I had trouble resisting throwing some food under the bridge myself. Lord Bob 06:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
You know, this discussion gives me an idea for a new law, sort of like Godwin's Law. "When a person's argument descends to 'we saved your ass in World War II', they are offically out of ideas." I'll call it "Fiend's Law". I wonder if it will catch on. -R. fiend 06:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
But we did save your butts in WWII. Would it kill you to admit that? England would be a tourist attraction today, submerged in the Atlantic ocean, France would have been Deutscland's whore house, and all other pathetic little European countries would be taking dictation from either that little man with the little moustache or that other not so little man with a not so little moustache. As for those klingons called Indians & Pakistanis, it was not that butt naked half blind beggar called Ghandi or that I wanna-be-a-white-man self-important fool called Jinnah that freed the Indian lands from the Brits. Hitler pummelled Britain so much that they had no choice but get the hell out of there. They still did not want to quit India. But once again, it was the mighty & proud American President who told them to hurry it up and get out of the Indian countries. Otherwise, those naked beggars had been fighting since 1857 to throw the Brits out - AND HAD FAILED COMPLETELY. Now these beggars love to hate the USA and not once have they ever thanked the USA for its role in their achieving their independence. But interestingly, now that they are all free, they are piling over each other to try and go to Britain. Idiots should have never thrown out the Brits, and they would all still be citizens of the United Kingdom. Crazy Little Woman 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Are you really getting mad or just pulling everyone's leg? Please calm down, it doesn't help the wikibully page's case by you shouting your support of Mr. Bush in our faces. But thanks for your passion. Demolition Man 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, drivel and on wrong place. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Please just vote on the issue, without personally attacking the editor - which is exactly the kind of thing he has listed as bullying behavior in his article. My $0.02: Keep it but move to Wikipedia:Wikibully. Keep. Sir Toby Belch 21:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not an encyclopedic entry, (essentially a wiki-neologism) and so does not belong as an article. Any elements that could go into the namespace, which might be those about recognizing abusive behavior and how to deal with it would be better adressed in places like RfA and RfC. --Icelight 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like the spirit in which it's been written, and I don't consider it to have been written in good faith, given that the author has zero main namespace edits under this user name (apart from this article, which should be in the Wikipedia: namespace anyway). On top of that, an aggressive and bitter piece such as this is not a profitable way of dealing with "Wikibullying" anyway, even if it is really such a serious problem, which I don't believe it is. Utter delete, and look at our existing mass of policy before writing something like this again. sjorford →•← 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like the tone please feel free to change it so that it is to your liking. Please know that bullying occurs more commonly in at least certain parts of wikipedia than you or me might be aware of. There are over half a million articles in the english language wikipedia, and many others in other languages, and no comprehensive way to keep track of abusive users. The WP:NPA policy and any other IP address blocking policies are unenforceable, as all that does is block IP's which can be counter-productive since many innocent wikipedians also suffer, because many users share ISP's and proxy servers and therefore, IP addresses. Please read the NPA (Remedies) page.It says on the page itself and I quote:
==Remedies==
If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.'
So, the WP:NPA page speaks for itself and that's what I'm saying: Blocking policies have failed miserably. But we can still tag and track bullies, so that they may be shamed into stopping the bullying. Being in a state of denial or personally attacking me is not going to make the problem go away. So, why not at least document the problem. It'd be the first step towards solving it. Demolition Man 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:12, 1 August 2005
  • Delete. Redundant duplication of existing policies as stated above. Perhaps worth redirecting to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or some similar page. Flowerparty talk 22:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. As usual, the "support hosiery" has come out of the woodwork. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not belong in the article namespace, Wikibully is not a well-recognized term.. As for list of wikibullies, it would be inherently POV... whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Listing someone as "bully" is a form of personal attack (namecalling) -- likely to provoke further wars about who deserves to be in the listing, and as mentioned by others earlier, there are more reasonable places to bring disputes to. --Mysidia 00:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikibully to be consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedians and the like. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move. Search reveals no Google hits. A local search shows the term is not used even on Wikipedia itself. Eric119 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A solution in search of a problem, and doesn't belong in article space, to boot. --Calton | Talk 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is no encyclopedic article. --{{IncManImage:IncMan.JPGtalk}} 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Started out somewhat interested, but BORED NOW - DELETE Bores are bullies, too. --Mothperson cocoon 01:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete flamebait material that shouldnt be in the namespace. JamesBurns 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 23:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Neer

  • Delete:Unimportant, probably advertising. Substub with no other information.--Zxcvbnm 13:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've greatly expanded the article. Neer is notable for reasons given in the article. Wasted Time R 18:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --OntarioQuizzer 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable DJ and writer. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please he is notable and important too Yuckfoo 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Helssen

Possibly vanity but certainly not notable. Ajshm 14:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — a game player legendary in his own mind. :) — RJH 15:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --OntarioQuizzer 21:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 23:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Health resort

Wikipedia is not a web directory. This either needs a complete rewrite into a good article, or deletion. Ken 14:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Jennings (Floridian)

Non-notable person who had an unsuccessful run at a state senate seat and whose only current claim to fame is that he shares his name with a certain Utah game show champion. OntarioQuizzer 14:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Running for state senate doesn't make you notable unless you win, so delete--nevertheless, good call bringing it here, as that's clearly a claim of notability. Meelar (talk) 15:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ral315 18:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure running for state senate makes you notable even if you do win. -R. fiend 20:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Punkmorten 08:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh Lord, it's worse than I thought. Delete. --Calton | Talk 08:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 14:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Scott Rashap

Ingenious hoax. Such a person never existed. 0 googles, no hits in the Times Digital Archive, and checking the knightage for the appropriate years shows no-one of any such name or similar name. Too subtle for BJAODN? David | Talk 15:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax. You've got to give the credit for putting so much thought into completely fabricating something, though. He'd probably do well in politics ;-) -Soltak 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --OntarioQuizzer 21:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-verifiable fabrication. Hall Monitor 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not currently a speedy category, I think. David | Talk 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You mean to say that complete fabrications can't be speedied? --OntarioQuizzer 03:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • They can't be speedied as such, only if they fit into one of the other criteria for Speedy deletion. Obvious complete fabrications have been speedied under 'patent nonsense', eg claims that an unknown person was President of the United States recently, but this one certainly isn't obvious like that. David | Talk 08:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Odissey

I can find no mention of this book or its authors anywhere. Joyous (talk) 15:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — even the town name "Tobe" seems like a gag. No evidence of factuality or notability. :) — 15:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stinks of hoax. Denni☯ 22:03, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaandu

Foreign language dicdef substub, if it's even valid. Meelar (talk) 15:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. Denni☯ 01:13, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 09:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995

As per VfD nomination for 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs on 7/30, this is one in a series of non-encyclopedic FHM subjective listings. To be consistent, this should also be deleted. Based on discussion I plan to nominate the others in the list. Thanks. :) RJH 15:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable list from a notable magazine.Gateman1997 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable - WP:POINT (don't disrupt the enyclopedia to make a point). --OntarioQuizzer 21:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV is POV. Besides, it was FHM's employees, not its management, who voted on this list, ie, just another group of non-notable people. I don't think this list has any enyclopedic value at all. Denni☯ 22:12, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Keep, it isn't POV to say 'this is what FHM said', that is a verifiable (if fairly uninteresting) fact. --Doc (?) 23:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it sexy. —RaD Man (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy Klonimus 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay well then I'm confused, and somewhat bemused. The vote is overwhelmingly to keep Sexiest Women but overwhelmingly to delete the Awesomely Bad list. Yet they are essentially the same type of list — a commercial editorial categorization. This is completely inconsistent, to say the least. Was it because one list was posted on a Saturday, perhaps? Maybe the voters don't get cable but do subscribe to FHM. — RJH
      • That wouldn't surprise me if that's the case... the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians do appear to be male.Gateman1997 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - grubber
  • Keep notable list. JamesBurns 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Kobras

Incorrect vfd tag put on this article by 67.150.121.110. Fixed and created vfd page. Appears to be nn gangcruft. No vote. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • no verifiability/no assertion of notability. A quick google found plenty of matches, but I didn't see anything to indicate they would be verifiable. Delete unless they prove verifiable. Friday 17:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, barely intelligible article -Soltak 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Schwartzman

  • Delete again! This article was recreated again! And this time someone give us her phone number please! FunkyChicken! 16:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as last time. Flowerparty talk 17:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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. GarrettTalk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Schwartzman

Not notable and unencylopedic. Entire article consist of the following: "Rachel Schwartzman is an incredibly hot Jewish-American woman." If we were to fill the Wikipedia with articles incredibly hot Jewish-American women things would be crazy! Frühstücksdienst 05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Should be changed to speedy deletion Athf1234 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preferably speedy. And I think I knew a Rachel Schwartzman, and she was hot. . . FunkyChicken! 05:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though if someone has her phone number... --Calton | Talk 08:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under new criteria. There is nothing in the article indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 08:58, 22 July 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 21:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Rabe

Vanity. No claim to notability. Just some random college student. MrBland 17:25, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 23:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Skies

no assertion of notability. an online game with 140 players. Try again if you get 1000X more players and they start writing articles about it in gaming magazines. Delete Friday

  • Delete; as nom. Agentsoo 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. If we all followed this model, I could write an article about my Friday night poker games with the guys. -Soltak 21:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn advertising Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But I'm going to move it to Bernice King, and leave a redirect. Splash 23:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernice Albertine King

This is the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., but the article doesn't assert anything to make her notable in her own right. Googling for "Bernice Albertine King" gives 77 results, and many of them are Wikipedia and mirror pages. Coffee 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Martin Luther King, Jr. or maybe Coretta Scott King if someone can verify the gay rights thing (there's no information in the article on Coretta Scott King about this). -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Bernice King has published a book which has received a review in USA Today and is a minister. She was also cited by Ebony Magazine as a "Ten of Tomorrow. [4] Capitalistroadster 02:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: "the gay rights thing" is true (I read a NY Times article on it). She is a driving force in conservative Christianity in the US. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have expanded the article. The gay marriage march is verifiable - I have attached references from MSNBC and the San Francisco Chronicle about it. Apparently, the church where she preaches has 25000 members so that is notable especially when some of her sermons have been published. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 10:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. Article should be renamed Bernice King after conclusion of vfd. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as expanded. Hall Monitor 20:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard of her before and she is more notable that many of the people who get articles here. --Alabamaboy 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 23:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesy Wheesy Dragon Flies

Delete, unless there's a criteria for "group vanity", in which case, speedy. Utterly non-notable group of kids. Friday 17:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy if possible. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy now per above. --Several Times 17:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SPeedy I concur --Measure 17:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

dont delete it if you want proof ill give you the bbc news article about us

  • Speedy. Ken 18:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Author has been adding a lot to the article. There are now, I guess, assertions of notability. Friday 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no way those people belong to a u-16 sporting group. The article is so vague, it seems like a hoax. Punkmorten 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Current version does not qualify for a speedy, but it certainly does for my delete vote --Doc (?) 19:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • RenameKeep makes sense
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 14:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears hoaxy-ish-esque-like Nick 04:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by ABCD. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Foust

Delete. Non-notable, vanity. - Myles Long/cDc 17:44, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 23:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediocre

Delete, this article will be only a dicdef at best. - Myles Long/cDc 17:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (dare one say it?) mediocre dicdef. Ken 17:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deadend article. Agentsoo 20:35, 1 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 23:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butler School

A former school, now apparently an apartment building. No indication of notability whatsoever. Delete DES (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}

  • Keep It just needs more information. --Maoririder 17:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note this is the article's creator. DES (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is going to be hard to find any information on the "Butler School" since it is no longer a school it is for older folks. --Maoririder 17:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Then it's unlikely anyone will want to research this. It is your responsibility to make sure that an article has some information beyond what little bit you may have in your head about the subject. Delete. PLEASE look at the messages on your talk page, Maoririder. - Lucky 6.9 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability, apparently unlikely to be improved. I don't see that former schools automatically need articles. Friday 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone comes up with some reason why it's notable. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this as a disambiguation page please there are lots of schools by this name all over the country Yuckfoo 20:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Week keep the dab page, though even that is fairly pointless as nothing is likely to point at it. The original creation however was definitely a speedy candidate. Dunc|☺ 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep DAB Klonimus 01:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep on demonstrating that all schools are notable, just like battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The average battleship has killed more people than have passed through most of these schools. --Carnildo 05:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I challenge that. Source? DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. Please put up or... ...retract that statement gracefully.  ;) Unfocused 16:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is going to be counted as another school kept, but it is a DAB page that is being kept. Vegaswikian 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much use as a disambiguation page. --Carnildo 05:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this excellent disambiguation page. Unfocused 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Kappa 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all enduring institutions. --Gene_poole 07:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Delete this is notable why? Just being a school is not notable.Gateman1997 07:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this disambiguation page. Though I agree with the end result, I wonder about the legitimacy of effectively blanking the original article and replacing it with a dab while under VfD. [5] DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 09:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sxssio

I can't tell if this is vanity, an attack, or a hoax. But googling on "sxssio" gets NO hits one hit, so I can't imagine it's real. Delete Friday 17:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, obviously. Thue | talk 18:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense, and the author removed the vfd tag. Punkmorten 19:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as absolute nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 09:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of streets in Manchester, New Hampshire

Seriously incomplete list, and not notable even if compelte. Wikipedia is not a street atlas. Delete DES (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I can try and add more. --Maoririder 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note the above is from the creator of the article. DES (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And article creators get to vote, just as nominators do. Delete nevertheless, but article creator votes are very valid. Meelar (talk) 18:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, but they should indicate it when they do. Delete, not encyclopedic. - ulayiti (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see how this would be useful even if it were complete. Friday 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if the list was comprehensive, it would not be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Satori 18:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not at all what we do here. Gamaliel 19:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT although if the article is kept I'll be happy to add List of streets in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 23skidoo 19:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded. --SPUI (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. First of all, one street? The author didn't even try. Just as well, really, as at least he didn't waste more time writing such a deletable article. -R. fiend 20:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, useless. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, interesting to no one. Hathawayc 21:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic waste of space; not even a slight attempt was made. I know more than one street in Manchester and I'm from Ohio! -Soltak 16:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article on Manchester can list any notable streets/roads and outline why they are notable. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Aecis 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Peter Grey 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete pointless list. Megapixie 03:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 07:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Carl

(This is an "interesting" one!) I wasn't sure whether to put this on a VfD or RfC or what... but here it is. It is worth saying that the page was previously deleted last month. Hot Karl is also relevant, because it was on VfD and ended up as a redirect to Ass to mouth.

Now, it seems clear that Hot Carl and Hot Karl should be treated the same. However, there is some controversy on Urban Dictionary as to what the term actually means - essentially whether it involves defecation or ass to mouth. If the former, perhaps it should redirect to Coprophilia instead. Or perhaps they should both just be deleted as unverifiable or unencyclopedic. If they are ruled unencyclopedic, there are several other sexual slang terms that should perhaps be considered (e.g. Donkey punch, Cleveland steamer). Bobbis 18:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect isn't there a list of sex slang page somewhere? SchmuckyTheCat 23:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for anything. Look for sources other than Urban Dictionary. Uncle G 03:29:08, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mindmap. Splash 23:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindmapper

Advertisement. - ulayiti (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Mind map. Bobbis 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 21:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The term should be a synonym; this page is an ad. Collabi 07:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MentaNet News

Appears to be a vanity page. Created and edited only by anon. A google search only yields Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a couple sites. JJLeahy 18:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. No indication of notability, reads very much like vanity, and strong evidence of astroturfing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:19, August 1, 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. Essjay · Talk 08:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peddidle

A car game, but it doesn't seem that widespread or notable; only 26 google hits for +Peddidle +car +headlight. Not widespread or famous enough for Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) 18:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete nn --Sleepyhead81 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's widespread around where I live, however I doubt it would be verifiable. I suspect spelling is an issue with finding it. Delete unless verifiable, and even then, possibly delete anyway for lack of notability. Friday 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Another delete from someone who's never heard of it. Agentsoo 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect It gets a lot more google hits when spelled "padiddle" (and there's already an article there, to which this adds nothing). As to its noteworthiness, I've played it on Alberta highways. Denni☯ 23:43, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • redirect or merge with padiddle - I'm from Pittsburgh and its so widely used in that region there is even a restaurant named after the game (or used to be). It does have varying spellings though so its hard to find. I'm not sure of the corrct spelling, however. Sleepnomore 02:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge as Sleepnomore. A lot of people here in New Jersey play it, but I suspect padiddle is the correct spelling. (Perhaps a note, "Also spelled ..."). - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with padiddle. Ken 04:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Padiddle. That reminds me that my wife's car has a headlight out. Aeverett 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 08:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of streets in Portland, Maine

From the same author as List of streets in Manchester, New Hampshire, and just as unencyclopedic. -Satori 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying it is unencyclopedic? Whats wrong with having a street guide? --Maoririder 18:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (moved from talk page by Satori)

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the section on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list is not useful, or notable. Even an individual street would only merit an article if it was significant for some reason (see Las Vegas Strip, Miracle Mile, Champs-Élysées). A list of a bunch of residential and commercial streets in a city has no content, no information that would lead to interest by the reader. -Satori 18:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT 23skidoo 19:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if expanded. --SPUI (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Pointless, and exactly what wikipedia is NOT. -R. fiend 20:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless you want a similar article for every city in the world. Agentsoo 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are plenty of more appropriate places to find street names. Hathawayc 21:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless list of links of non-notable streets without any information. Listing street names is better left to Mapquest. Courtkittie 22:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, very unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 02:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, for all the above reasons. Megapixie 03:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slaughter_Mob

Gangcruft. MrBland 18:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought it was bandcruft. Either way, no assertion of notability, so Delete. Friday 18:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear delete. Agentsoo 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not being able to tell what an article is about means it has "no meaningful content" and is therefore a candidate for Speedy delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Unfortunately, I think I have some idea what the article is talking about :( -- MrBland 03:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete anyway as nn vanity. Punkmorten 08:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MP3 Newswire

I am unsure about how notable this is. It appears to be vanity. The only contributions were made by Mp3hist and a handful of anons. I believe these anons are all the same person because a number of edits make links to MP3 Newswire and to this page: 192.11.226.120: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], 69.248.83.66: [11] [12] [13], Mp3hist: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], 68.38.80.92: [19] [20] [21]. Alexa ranking is 127,317. JJLeahy 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. My purpose for listing all of the articles by year, from 1999 on, was to create a timeline on the growth of digital media, the essays representing the perceptions of that specific time. The goal was historical, which is why all of the links go to their Archive.org page rather than the site itself (with the exeption of 2004 and 2005, which are not yet on the archive). A listing of select articles by date seemed more useful to a researcher.

I have not seen anyone else use the same type of listing technique as I employed, but then Wikipedia is still an evolving form itself and an idea used in the proper context should be evaluated on its merits. I admit, on a surface level I can see how these links can be confused with spam, but these select articles individually offer detail beyond the scope of Wikipedia and serve as subjects for further reading. The point of the layout was to offer key events and technologies in a convenient glance.

I invite Trickyt and Finlay McWalter and everyone else who wishes to vote on this to read a few of the articles from 1999, 2000, and 2001 and then ask if they think they would be useful to someone researching MP3 several years from now. My plan was to create similar listings for similar site's like P2Pnet.net, which is edited by Jon Newton, Slyck.com by Thomas Mennecke and the essays of Declan McCullagh on CNET. I am just waiting get some more energy to plow through several years of essays to pull the gems. It makes no sense to go through that effort if its going to cause problems. I think these articles are important and appropriate, but that's only my opinion and I can probably use some guidance. The description of MP3 Newswire itself is modest, only a short paragraph and a listing of a few of the contributers. -- Mp3hist | Talk 22:57 August 1, 2005

  • delete. As this seems to have been the subject of such extensive astroturfing that it's difficult to trust even that lowly Alexa number. Spam. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. It looks like vanity to me too. Trickyt 19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. - With Mp3hist's explanation, it seemed like this website was more important despite such a poor Alexa. I searched "MP3 News": Yahoo listed this third, Google listed it second. Also, looking into Alexa's history, MP3 Newswire has had several jumps in readership (altough they don't get much higher than 40,000). It seems like they have a legitimate claim in being a notable place for news about MP3. (If Mp3hist wants to show the history of this technology, I think that's valid, as long as it's within the history part of the article, where it will be seen by those who are going to use it.) -JJLeahy 15:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 03:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Found this, MaximumPC named MP3 Newswire one of the Most Relevant MP3 Sites Online in its August 2001 issue and Yahoo Internet Life named it one of the 50 Most Incredibly Useful Sites as the representative for the MP3 category in 2002 -- Mp3hist | Talk 22:57 August 10, 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 Redirect --malathion talk 02:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding barrel

This doesn't really seem like an encyclopedia topic, and it borders on original research. The article is about barrels that explode in video games and action movies; I can't think of anywhere to redirect it, but this doesn't seem like a notable and well-defined encyclopedic phenomenon. Meelar (talk) 18:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — appears to be a joke contribution, particularly when you look at the earliest history which has since been "cleaned up". There's probably room for an article on explosions in computer games. But I don't believe this is it. — RJH 19:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even more common than exploding sheep.  Grue  11:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it - and the sheep, too. How is this notable? Vsmith 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but merge into, say, level design or first-person shooter. This was one of the conceits in early first-person games that became characteristic of the whole genre, and that remain a strong influence on game design today. —Simon 02:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Computer and video game clichés. Thunderbrand 21:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Angela. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman thomas

This is an article about a non-notable graduate student. The details included suggest it was written by the subject and it is therefore also vanity. I recommend deletion Tobycat 18:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- Clearly a vanity page, should have been CSD - --Outlander 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - non-notable, vanity. -Satori 19:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 19:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It already was speedy deleted. Tobycat's edit is the first in the page history. I've deleted it again. Angela. 20:10, August 1, 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 Snowspinner 01:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar

The subject of the page now admits that he created the page, making it less questionably a vanity page. See this article for details. And note that I renominated the page not because I thought that the prior VfD debate wasn't useful, but that it would likely have been different had people known without a doubt that Mr. Farivar concocted his own page. Jason 19:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(Follow this link -- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (1st nomination) -- for the historical record of this page's first VfD debate.)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

[edit] Votes from registered users

  • Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase, and, imho, the persistent vandalism to this entry shows that author's work is getting noticed. Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion if entry is relevant/subject notable. Also, subsequent, critically analytical [if POV, and in need of neutralization] changes have been made to this article, showing interest from the non-vandal side of the fence too. This is an entry that apparently provokes strong feelings in some, and is in need of expansion / input from editors other than the author, not deletion. -- Adrian 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. There aren't 15,000 entries. There are 317 unique hits, many of which are posts to blogs and sites like budding-romance.com. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • My only comments to this would be: (a) persistent vandalism of this particular entry is probably less reflective of its relevance and more reflective of the author's reference to it to garner attention. For example, the vandalism appears to be concentrated around the times of mention by the author on his weblog or in the column that prompted this relisting. (b) While Wikipedia is great at the multiple author expansion/edit model, self-written bio pages like this are the best examples of the single-editor problem -- precious few others are in the position to contribute about a subject as narrow and unknown, and when they do (as in the current Metafilter adds/deletes), it's mass-deleted as vandalism rather than edited and tuned to remain neutral. Jason 19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep I can't agree with making one's own page, but he looks like a legit, fairly-widely published journalist to me. Friday 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion. As discussed in the past vote, subject's writing credits seem to make him a legitimate figure, and this new debate about him seems to only increase the relevance of his entry. (and in reply to Cjr2q below, he created this page eight months before his article appeared -- that's hardly correlative. And when did glib encouragement of anything merit deletion of an article? Attack the page, not the person.) -- Jsnell 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is clearly a vanity page. Chronicling every single person who's ever written for some two-bit website is a project unto itself. There are a lot of google results for my name too. And for "Bill Jones." Doesn't mean anyone cares who we are. We have user pages for this sort of thing. --Leadingbrand 19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Slate is a recognized media entity, as are most of the other publications Farivar has written for. "Cyrus Farivar" is a bit less common of a name than Bob Jones -- most of the 15,000 hits are Farivar's bylines and stories written for publication, and other information related to him. The number of people showing up here speak for themselves as to whether anyone cares about this topic. ---- Adrian 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Presence in this discussion can hardly be taken as an endorsement of the validity of the page in question. Mediareport 20:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly of interest to wikipedia users. Kappa 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy. In addition to vanity, subject is insufficently notable. Thousands of people write for significant publications and not all those people are encyclopedic. Gamaliel 19:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The world is full of freelance journalists who could claim the same credentials as this guy, and none of them is notable --Dtcdthingy 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --JPotter 19:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Agentsoo 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. shameful behavior indeed, but more relevantly, being a freelance writer does not make one notable. Brighterorange 20:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, merely one of myriad free-lancers who occasionally contribute to the web; self-authored self-promotion. The very model of the modern blog-whore, wikipedia-style. I agree with the suggestion that this would be an OK user page. --Rodii 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. This is what the user page is for. Brainwidth 20:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant vanity. Demiurge 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to his user page. Moriori 21:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Vanity page, as he states in his article that others should also create a wikipedia entry on themselves. --TIB (talk) 21:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to vanity page or add it to his user page. He admits on http://www.slate.com/id/2123673/ that it is a vanity page. It's a classic case. If he was truly notable, someone else would have created a page about him. -GregNorc (talk) 21:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes! You're right! All notable subjects have pages already! Oh wait, no you're not! Snowspinner 21:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of a notable subject having to add themself to the wikipedia, maybe you can enlighten me. -GregNorc (talk) 22:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, Snowspinner, you'd go so far as to decide that your opinion is more important than the outcome of a VfD, a full community process? You'd engage in behavior specifically meant to subvert the outcome of that community process? However anyone thinks about the page in question, I think that your attitude speaks for itself. Jason 23:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No. I'd go so far as to declare the circumstances of a page's creation irrelevent for whether the current version should be deleted, and to ignore all votes involving "vanity" since the article has been edited by people who are not Farivar. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's really surprising to me that a Wikipedia administrator would declare an intention to use their powers to oppose the results of community consensus. That's not what those powers are for, and this is inappropriate behavior for a sysop. --Grouse 23:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And VfD isn't for a small band of regulars to railroad articles to deletion with no reference to policy. So, you know, we're all in the doghouse. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point of view but it certainly has no relevance to me, as I am not a VfD regular in any way. And you are the only one threatening to abuse your power as a sysop. --Grouse 00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • -- I've repeatedly and strongly supported my position in favor of this entry being kept, but I think Snowspinner needs to more clearly articulate his reasons. Out of respect for the community he serves, it would be appropriate to explain specific reasons for disregarding specific votes, or rationales. To his credit, he's done so somewhat, but I'd be uneasy about this article being kept, despite a majority opinion, without explanation -- ie, specific suspect accounts involved in the voting, votes not grounded in solid policy, etc. That said, I still support the whole not-deleting-this-entry thing. -- Adrian 03:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Here's my position. A journalist with notable publications writes an article on himself. Is this bad? Yes. Should we assume that he knows about our policies on vanity pages? No. Assume good faith. Don't bite the newbies. This is someone who is giving Wikipedia good press, and who probably made an honest mistake. Regardless of the original status of the article, it's been edited by many people who are not him now - that makes it not vanity anymore. It's just wrong to delete an article because of a genuine mistake of a user who is being a real ambassador of good faith and for whom a strong case for notability can be made. If I had started this article, saying he was a journalist with publications in Macworld, the New York Times, Wired, and Slate, there would be no objection. The issue is that people are pissy that he made a mistake. And even more pissy that he made his mistake publicly on Slate. That's not a reason to delete. Reasons to delete have to do with the content of an article. Too much of this discussion has to do with the article's creator. And those aren't valid votes. Snowspinner 04:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • Personally, I have supported a person editing autobiographical pages in the past. But that guy was notable, and it was appropriate for him to have a Wikipedia page. Not so for this guy. But whether you have compelling reasons for ignoring each vote is irrelevant, because you have already made it clear that you will ignore the results of the community process, even before it is completed, and no matter how compelling the popular consensus is. This is the very definition of prejudice. --Grouse 08:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • This is a quote from a previous VfD which also began as an autobiography: The biography proposed policy, which says in part "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Mr. Farivar meets this criteria I believe. The article and VfD can be found at Jesse Liberty, a precedent exists for these situations. Hall Monitor 22:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                • You haven't changed at all since your Lum the Mad days, I see, Spin. ----BruceR 23:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He does have a certain degree of fame on the Internet, and writes for a major company (MSN). However, the article's references to itself "....which led to a debate about the validity of this very page" should be removed. Aleron235 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So now every freelance writer who manages to place an article with a "major company" merits a Wikipedia page? That's madness.
  • Keep Despite having started the article himself, the author is a journalist, working for a fairly well-known publication, and is syndicated to various portals. I don't believe Wikipedia should drive journalists away. They do contribute lots of insightful content to existing articles.--Cioxx 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing but a vanity entry. Does not contribute to the world's knowledge or education. Blake8086 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if for no other reason than to punish him for inciting others to create vanity pages. ThePedanticPrick 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Of little interest to anyone but the subject in question. Serves little purpose other than being a magnet for vandalism by people angered by his bragging over outing a hoax.VelocityJE 23:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Funny, I had written this entire vote before and now it's disappeared. I guess someone doesn't like other people's opinions. The entry is valid - it's not touting himself, has no bias, only lists a quick bio which is pretty full of valid media outlets. And as I said before, if Mr. Hankey or Washingtonienne can have an entry, so can Cyrus. Mrtourne 23:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mildly notable journalist. Besides, if we delete this the terrorists-- er, vandals-- win. --Tysto 23:20, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Delete It is not really a good source of information and it should ebe a user page Topio 23:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Userfy. This is appropriate for a user page, but not notable enough for inclusion as a regular page. And yes, I think Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is far more notable than Mr. Farivar. Mr. Hankey is a cultural phenomenon who is probably known by millions. --Grouse 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page, and he smugly encourages others to do the same in his Slate article ("Why haven't you?") --Brett A. Thomas 00:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • So, are Wikipedia articles now to be deleted because their authors and/or subjects are "smug"? Jsnell 00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, we are to delete vanity pages, as listed in the rules of engagement. I find it interesting, especially given your connection to Macworld, Mr. Snell, that you so vigorously defend the author. Although he is one of your employees, and I'm sure a good one that you respect, this does overstep the bounds. The New Zorker 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't believe my knowledge of Mr. Farivar disqualifies me from having an opinion. (And my user talk page makes it clear who I am and what my affiliations are.) In addition to being someone who has been dealing with Internet content since 1991, I am also the originating author of two Wikipedia articles and have contributed substantially to a handful of others; I am not a Wikipedia veteran by any standpoint, but I have come to appreciate Wikipedia and what it represents, as well as how it works (and in some cases, fails to work) as an information system. I believe I have a legitimate perspective to share; if you choose to disagree, that's what makes this a beautiful place to be. Jsnell 18:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Just because you might not of heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't notable. I mean, he's published... isn't that enough? But keep for reasons beyond just that. MShonle 01:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Lots and lots of people are published. Publication alone can't be sufficient.
  • Keep; there are lots of annoying vanity pages that are, unfortunately, notable enough to keep. I quote from Wikipedia:Vanity page: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." He is sufficiently important, so this is keepable. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is rather disappointing that this article is protected from editing while on VfD, a bit of a catch 22. —RaD Man (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • D - an assistant editor? please. Fawcett5 01:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see this person as a notable journalist, unless we're saying all journalists should have an entry. He doesn't seem to have written for any mainstream publication, and I haven't found any Google entries about him, which means there are no third-party sources. Also, his article says he's 25, so he's unlikely to be notable yet in terms of his profession (it's not impossible at that age, but it's unusual). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are only 317 unique hits, most of them to blogs and little known websites. Can anyone who has voted to keep produce a single article he's had published in a mainstream publication? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • The page we're actually voting on includes a link to one of his several New York Times pieces. Jsnell 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That looks like one review on their technology page. Anything else? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable [i]enough[/i] to me. Verifiability is an issue, but I'm assuming good faith on this. -- Natalinasmpf 02:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity plain and simple. Let this one through and thus begins the flud (sic). --dahamsta 03:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if he becomes notable enough then someone else can write an article about him. Blackcats 03:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Userfy - Vanity, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Popularity or notoriety must not be mistaken for notability. This sets an awful precedent. If every person with comparable achievements should see fit to make Wikipedia entries about themselves, then it serves to elevate the signal-to-noise ratio to uncomfortable levels. That he links to his own Wikipedia entry on the Slate article and incites others to do the same encourages this. This entry would best be relegated to a userpage. Journalism is about the articles, not the journalists, and at this point, Mr. Farivar's case for being notable or well-established is highly debatable. Delete, and let someone else start an entry about him as they see fit. To put it in another way: it just doesn't smell right. -- Lush 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Lush. Pure vanity; junk the clown. --DoubleCross 05:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a lot of less notable people have biographical blurbs in wikipedia. Just because he originally wrote it himself does not make it useless. I wish that many of the people with biographical articles that I have edited would come on and do a little fact checking and adding to their own entries. This is the power of wikipedia. --Darkfred 05:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, It's a useless vanity page and not worth the time and the effort that the constant vandalism it will be getting will waste. Urbanski 08:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep comment: this is legitimate journalist published in various notable media; 15,000 google hits; users would want to be able to look him up. Kappa 09:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second vote in this vfd.
  • Oops. Kappa 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, 317 unique hits (be careful with the google test), vanity. Proto t c 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "Unique hits" means nothing in my experience, certainly nothing "unique" about them. Kappa 10:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • '317 unique hits' means 317 different websites have his name on them, according to google (albeit most are just blogs), the figure of 15,000 includes multiple pages of single websites/blogs. Proto t c 11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Where does it say that? Kappa 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps he didn't know the vanity policy. Doesn't really matter, because this particular tempest in a teapot isn't exactly watergate. Vonfraginoff 10:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable CDC (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Cyrus Farivar on wheels and embaress him with the stupid title. Willy McWheels 11:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is my first VfD. In fact, this discussion has been highly illuminating for me, teaching me much about Wikipedia and the process of creating, editing, and deleting entries. The entry should be kept as a sort of "meta-entry" about what Wikipedia is, can be, and shouldn't be. Because you have to keep the discussion about the VfD, you also have to keep the article to which it refers. Although, in fairness, if you can both keep the article, and keep the links to it alive, and at the same time perform a redirect, then the article should be slid to the User Pages section. Like it or not, the Slate article that tweaks Wikipedia is now a permanent part of the ether - people will be reading it and linking to it for years to come. Malangali 11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - A vanity article if ever I saw it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess we need the self-agrandizers in the Wikipidia too. Michael L. Kaufman 15:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- It's evident that this article as important as Franz Melde, where Franz Melde was somewhat important in physics, Cyrus Farivar is somewhat important in a particular even regarding online forum scams. At one point this may have been a vanity post, but now it's a part of history. Werty8472
  • Keep. (Lengthy explanation below) --Jacobw 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a tool for reward or punishment. For a biography, the question isn't how annoying the subject is; it's whether the subject meets the generally agreed-upon Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. It is independently verifiable that Farivar has written for "periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Therefore, a biography of him merits inclusion, according to Wikipedia guidelines. (And, yes, I think it would actually be a good thing to have articles on every writer for the New York Times. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no shortage of space here. More information is better than less information.) That's why I vote keep--but for those who are unpersuaded, I point out another possible solution that was used in a previous situation.
    • When I joined Wikipedia, I am embarrassed to admit that I created an article about myself, because I met the criteria for inclusion. After becoming more familiar with Wikipedia standards, I came to understand that it was inappropriate for a user to judge his own notability. I therefore put the article I had created up for VFD. The consensus that emerged was that it would be deleted--but that a user who felt the information was worth preserving would recreate it from independently verifiable sources. This might seem like a rather roundabout approach, but I'd argue that it is reasonable compromise that is true to the spirit of Wikipedia. So... My vote (and first choice) is that this article be kept. My second choice would be that, if it is deleted, a user recreate it from independently verifiable sources. Jacobw 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author admits to having created this page. Andrew pmk 15:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, self-promotion. Just because "his writing has appeared" (how often?) in some notable papers doesn't make him a notable journalist. I see no particular achievement here, and no one except himself would have written an article about him. NoPuzzleStranger 16:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not Notable, User added 'facts' about himself that are in dispute. Also the circumstances around the creation are highly disruptive to Wikipedia, and encourage violation of policy. I admit I am of two minds as to whether or not sure this last part should be held against the article, but even without it, the first two points stand. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - If I can't have a vanity page, he can't either. --lesalle 17:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, borderline notable within his field. It is interesting to note that during the first go round on VfD there was nearly a unanimous consensus to keep. Are some voting to delete solely on the grounds of vanity? Hall Monitor 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 17:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please even though the cabal is determined to remove it Yuckfoo 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep The guy is a newsreporter [22] which is pretty well known for Slate. Are there anonymous / new users trying to delete this article? --ShaunMacPherson 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Not notable. (By the way, this is my 1108th edit.) PRiis 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE the very definition of vanity --RN 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy this would have been excellent stuff for Cyrus to have put in a user page of his own, and would have been just as findable when querying the wiki for his name. He isn't anywhere near notable enough to need an actual article of his own. --Jrssystemsnet 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nomination misunderstands the circumstances that would warrant deletion of a vanity page. We discourage people from editing articles about themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean we destroy the content. --Michael Snow 04:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, very notable Internet personality. — JIP | Talk 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • On what planet? Until this Wikipedia page popped up, I'm sure a lot of us here (Mr. Snell excluded) had never heard of Mr. Farivar. Putting up a Wikipedia entry on yourself to make yourself "notable" isn't exactly the way to go about doing it. I'm going to agree with the recommendation to userfy, as that seems to be the most graceful way to solve this problem - Mr. Farivar stays on Wikipedia in some fashion, and all the arguments used against it thus far would become irrelevent, as he's a user, not a "very notable Internet personality." The New Zorker 11:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • -- This article meets Wikipedia policy criteria for inclusion of biographical entries, which include several standards under which a subject may qualify as 'notable' -- Farivar meets enough of these standards for his entry to be valid. Votes to delete based solely on "this is vanity!" are not reflective of valid cause for deletion under WP policy, and may be disregarded unless amended to show objective reasoning recognized by existing WP policy. I note again that there's enough interest in this topic that it's highly probable that the community will polish and update it as time goes on, the lack of faith in the WP process shown by some notwithstanding. -- Adrian 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I first heard about Cyrus Farivar before even knowing he had made a Wikipedia article about himself. It was from a mailing list my former work colleague manages. He sent a link to Cyrus's blog, where he explained how he busted this "greenlighting" thing. There's no law saying no one should ever write a Wikipedia article about him/herself. Only you have to be someone that a Wikipedia article would be written about anyway. — JIP | Talk 20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete we shouldn't encourage vanity like that.  Grue  11:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • -- Nor should we discourage vanity by nuking relevant content out of a mistakenly strict interpretation of WP policy on 'vanity' pages, or dismiss the work of subsequent editors that have worked on the page by painting every word and every edit with the 'vanity' brush. -- Adrian 13:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • - If I were a cynical person, I might wonder if the frequency and number of comments from Mssrs. Lamo and Snell here and in the original VfD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_Farivar> talk defending C.F. arent more about other agendas, rather than a genuine discussion among Wiki members about the merits of self-posting one's own accompishments - regardless of the content value - but then, I am not such a cynical person... m1key 16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • - I am glad you are not cynical. To correct you, however, I did not participate in the first VfD. There are multiple Jasons at work here. I'm user Jsnell, and the other Jason is not. Also, one of us voted to Keep, the other to Delete. I don't believe Mr. Lamo has even met Mr. Farivar. Jsnell 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Created as a non-notable vanity page. If this person is truly notable, or has gained notability simply due to the flap over his Wikipedia page, let somebody else create or recreate a new page. Polpo 14:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity listing - Tεxτurε 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. If this guy gets further press, I wouldn't object to someone coming along and writing a vanity-free non-recreation-of-original-content article on this guy. --Deathphoenix 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The current version is accurate, reasonably neutral, and summarizes his involvement in a briefly newsworthy even (the greenlighting hoax). While hardly a hugely important person, he is reasonably widely read reporter. Certainly far less well known or significant people are in Wikipedia. I loathe his decision to write himself up, but ultimately it should be the content that matters. Alan De Smet | Talk 13:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if he is important enough, creating his own page and editing it regularly is a no-no. Encouraging others to follow suit is asking for disaster. If we don't draw the line clearly on this one, it will be exceedingly difficult to draw the line on other vanity pages. BTW, I'd vote the same way if GW Bush created a page on himself. The notability doesn't matter, its how the content came to be. -Lommer | talk 18:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Criteria for inclusion have been established and it has been stated that this person meets those criteria (writes for periodicals with circulation of 5,000 or over). All other considerations (did the user create the article himself, is the user a nice guy, etc.) are irrelevant. That is what policies are for.
I am a little confused, howver, as his page says he is an intern at MacWorld and when I search for him on MacWorld all I get from them is that hew as an intern there.
[Disclaimer: I created my own article, and went through this same process; my objectivity can certainly be challenged]. Jliberty 17:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Votes from new users, IP addresses, and unsigned votes

Delete -- The guy had to hype his own page in a Slate article. Isn't this what blogs are for?

      • If someone had walked in off the street and written this entry about Farivar, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. As it is, we're contemplating disregarding his relevance because we don't like his conduct. I recognize, respect, and disagree with the original reasons for this Vfd, but some of the votes here smack of a desire to tear others down, not make Wikipedia better. To me, one of the fantastic things about Wikipedia has always been the potential for controversial entries to grow and evolve. This one won't be given a chance if deleted, and that's a shame. Also, I'm a bit concerned regarding the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry. -- Adrian 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I suspect that the "the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry" is a reaction to Mr. Farivar's somewhat inaccurate Slate article. It reeks of masturbatory grandstanding at best, and is a bad practice of journalism at worst.
        • Agreed -- if I sat down with Farivar, interviewed him, and wrote a third-party bio page for him, it would no longer be a vanity page. Would he be reknown enough to keep a page on Wikipedia? Who knows, but clearly that is not what is motivating many people within this discussion. Jsnell 00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • -- Have you sat down with Farivar, Jsnell? Just asking to make clear the only conflict of interest is the Macworld one and not a personal relationship. Jaysus Chris 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
            • You can believe anything you want. Whatever serves yourself, of course. Jsnell 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The author writes a vanity entry about himself, then writes an article about it to stir up a little notoriety. Not cool. Also glibly encourages others to create their own vanity entries: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?" --Cjr2q 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- I'm voting delete for the same reasons as the two users above --karmafeed 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Joel de Bunchastu Delete, delete, delete. Self-promotion in such a blatant manner is in bad taste, as is his amazing exploits in [i]outing an internet hoax[/i]. He is truly an american hero. vote from User:69.174.57.96

Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- 1) He admits authorship and 2) it's not interesting. A "degree of Internet infamy" is like a Mickey keychain from Disneyland. Gramschmidt 19:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit.
  • Delete Original article not notable in the slightest; should've been user page. Current controversy not worth noting. Mediareport 19:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: user's second edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I see my name on Google all the time. I have occasionally been the subject of "internet controversy." I am a published journalist. I have the common decency not to create a Wikipedia page about myself. This opens the door to countless other "vanity pages" by would-be actors, writers, etc., and I see no benefit in having Cyrus Farivar on a list with H.L. Mencken. When Mr. Farivar writes something on the same level as Mr. Mencken, I will be the first to argue for his reinstatement. Hell, I'll even write his entry. Until then, he doesn't belong here. -- The New Zorker (note, no Wikipedia page) 209.113.141.74 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • note: user's IP is new, but the user himself wrote the original entries for All Along The Watchtower and Blind Willie McTell ages and ages ago. The user is also here referring to himself in the third person.
      • I have to ask: at what point is someone "Wikipedia-worthy?" And who decides that? Surely Mencken doesn't define the bottom limit. Does David Pogue? Does Steven Levy? Does Maureen Dowd? And what if that decision is influenced by the behavior of the author or the subject of the page, rather than his/her own merits? In addition, what if this wasn't a self-created page? Then the "vanity page" arguments have to turn into something else. Ego page? Nepotism page? Jsnell 21:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, you're right. It's unfair to put a "bar" down in terms of these sorts of arguments. If he didn't create the page himself, there would be less of a "delete this page" upswell. But the fact remains, David Pogue, Steven Levy and Maureen Dowd are all fairly well-known, or at least have a following of some sort. I see no Farivar Fan Club. If I create a page on Murray Chass, an author whose name I currently see on the front page of the New York Times website, does that grant him legitimacy? While I acknowledge Mencken is a poor bar to set, a bar does exist, and Mr. Farivar does not clear it. The New Zorker 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.
  • Delete and move to his user page. He has admitted this entry was created for vanity and is urging others to do the same. If the authorship of this page had been known during the first VfD the outcome would likely have been different. Entry is non-notable self-promotion. 65.31.115.145 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC
  • Delete This is a vanity entry created to garner him personal attention by whoring it out with his new job at Macworld. He made sure everyone on Slate knew that he had a wikipedia entry, and is using Wikipedia as a way to stroke his ego and hopefully make himself more popular or valuable. This is not helpful to the awesomeness of Wikipedia.
    • Thanks for the vote, invisible user. I don't really appreciate your mention of "whoring" in conjunction with "Macworld," but since your sentence is completely nonsensical I can't really question it directly. The Slate reference was a joke -- we professional writers, we makey with the jokey sometimes, see? I see what's going on here. Cyrus stepped on a landmine that was armed with the sanctimony of Wikipedians. And he is being punished (in various ways) for that. I'd like to believe that this article is being voted for/against deletion on its merits (or lack of same), but it's clear that some participants in this process are slagging on the spirit of Wikipedia while claiming to endorse its tenents. It's too bad, but very enlightening about the weaknesses in a system as strong as Wikipedia. Jsnell 23:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You are welcome Mr. Snell. I am sorry that my entry was nonsensical and difficult for you to interpret. However, this is a vanity entry designed for others to see and help increase his "fame." I am not a writer, unfortunately I cannot phrase things as eloquently as you. And I am not invisible, I am looking at my hands right now. Wakka Wakka Wakka! I makey with the jokey! Note: Unsigned edit by Maiael -- Adrian 22:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Assuming no one deletes the paragraph fairly explaining the current situation (and allowing users who get to Wikipedia from his Slate piece or his blog to see that they shouldn't really create their own entry), there's no reason not to allow this. Jaysus Chris 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • First edit.
    • Actually, I think that if this page survives it must take note of the controversy it engendered -- including the concept of Vanity pages. (As the writer of the aforementioned paragraph, I thought I'd toss that in.) Jsnell 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep;Subject announcement of a Wikipedia page about himself will do more good for Wikipedia than harm. Might bring a large number of new readers to Wikipedia. (This is the first time I've ever edited anything here.) Furthermore, his role in outing the 'greenlighting' hoax will have done a lot in bringing to light the existence of 'hoax communities' like WookieFetish. Finally, what's so bad about vanity pages? Is disk space not getting so cheap as to be free? Won't vanity pages make people care more about Wikipedia? If a person gets used to writing a page about themselves, that should introduce them to the process of Wikipedia and might get them to start editing other pages about subjects they care about. All of this is a good thing, right? 63.197.5.4
  • Delete - I am in a position to know that Cyrus Farivar was one of the ringleaders in developing the "Greenlighting" hoax - the purpose was to see how far the traditional media could be hoaxed before Cyrus would "uncover" the hoax and be the hero. The whole "Greenlighting" hoax was designed in large part by him in order to get recognition for himself (his blog had been receiving very little traffic or attention). Unfortuately Cyrus jumped the gun and pulled the plug on the hoax before it really got going. Therefore since Cyrus was a conspirator in creating the hoax in the first place, this entry is only serving to perputate his self-grandeur. 209.225.104.124 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • -- Please cite your sources on this. I don't know the policy for comments on VfD pages off the top of my head, but this statement seems potentially libelous, as it basically accuses him of falsifying a story, unless supported by verifiable evidence. -- Adrian 03:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This guy is unimportant and the article is mere vanity. 69.250.25.213 03:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, To the question of whether Mr. Farivar is "important" enough to merit inclusion in the Wikipedia, counting the number of Google hits is hardly the right measure to use unless you would argue that Jessica Simpson having twice as many hits as Isaac Newton fits your definition of importance. I have to agree with the Fernand Braudels of the world who assert that the lives of peasants (translate: small time journalists) are just as significant as those of kings and emperors (translate: presidents and CEOS) in the shaping of the modern world, at least in aggregate, and thus should be included in any historical or contemporary account of it. --scottdwhite 11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC) vote from User:68.8.79.126
  • Delete, Stupid vanity post, I bet all the google hits were from his Grandma.

24.199.94.32 07:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- If it is not fiction, why delete it? Isn't having all this info here what Wikipedia was for?
  • Delete or at least keep up the more honest references to his dubious reporting skills re the "Greenlighting" thing, which seems his main claim to fame. And bragging about being on of the first reporters to write about Podcasting in Oct 04 seems equally dubious... Anyway, all-in-all he seems to just be trying to build up some personal propaganda and, well, that shouldn't be what Wikipedia is used for. - Mr. Knowles (Preceding comment by 213.7.176.105.)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.209.178 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 August 2005.
  • Delete. Trouble, right here in Wiki City, Capital T and that rhymes with E and that stands for.... EGO. Having waded through all the comments, my nickels worth is that y'all either have Policies that everyone agrees to adhere to - or - suggestions that one can cherry pick deli-style. I have not RTFA on policies, but it seems to me that is what is germane here, not personality, popularity, relevance etc. Clearly, there are other ways to utilze the wiki-resources to announce oneself to the world, and while I do slightly tip my hat to C.F. for the brazen marketing, I also offer a slap upside the head for not following the posted TOS. Life is not a lockstep process, however every exception degrades the value and meaning of the concensus you have achieved. Tempest in a teapot? Yup. This should be an easy big D. - m1key m1key 14:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • First edit.
  • Delete - Not Notable. I worked as a tech journalist -- can't see how he's 'notable' within his field. He's not a Mossberg, Pogue or Dvorak. This audience is obvious biased to be more aware than the general population of technology reporters and other tech personalities, yet the wide majority here obviously had not heard of him prior to the current discussion. His name has almost zero recognition, much less fame or respect. Leaving the entry contributes to dilution of the content base by inserting low-value, low-return data. Tom K. 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • First edit.
  • Delete The guy may be a newsreporter, but he created the entry for himself, trying to raise his own reputation/self importance.
  • Delete vanity. The author seems to be attempting to increase his notoriety by writing an article targeting a tech-savvy group, and then referencing to his own wikipedia entry in the article. Regardless of whether this brings 'positive press' to wikipedia (which I doubt, self-aggrandezment isn't exactly what this site is for), it's still a bald attempt to increase his own visibility. 128.146.232.239 20:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- As others have said, it's a pure vanity page. What's worse, the subject admits that he created it for purposes of self-promotion, and urges others to do the same. He regularly edits the page to make sure it stays flattering to him. The Google hits on his name are likely the result of similar self-promotion, while the vandalism of the page is probably a reaction to it. 67.81.189.161 21:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The article was created to drive more traffic to the subject's blog, and is purely a vanity page.
  • KEEP This deletion petition was started by the people who tried to create the greenlighting hoax. They are putting it up for deletion out of spite that their plan failed. Cyrus is just the easiest target for them to lash out at. Besides the guy is a journalist and writes for a well known magazine. It seems to me that most people just don't like his attitude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnEnglish (talk • contribs).. First edit.
    • Whatever your opinion on the VfD, don't make up reasons. As you can see by the very first paragraph of this page, this "deletion petition" (VfD) was started by me, and I haven't a single thing to do with Greenlighting or any other faux trend. The first time I heard about it was in reading Mr. Farivar's article, which brought me to his admission that he authored his own WP page, which struck me as Not The Way Wikipedia Does Things, which led to me starting the VfD. Please don't make things up. Jason 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Or so you say... ;)
  • Keep "Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase... -- Adrian 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC). what more do you saddos need. 212.101.64.4 16:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not notable. Bring back his entry when he is noted for something other than being a party pooper. Wait, I think I just contradicted myself. He's not even a notable party pooper.Fgarriel 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"DELETE" Boring. Useless.

  • Delete -- Pure vanity, nobody knows who he is. 66.24.4.236 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete His most notable claim to fame seems to be having created an autobiography on Wikipedia 83.76.216.60 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it started as a vanity page, the interest seems to be subtantial. Further, the information appears to be accurate, and increases the total knowledge available on the Wikipedia. Gearyster 16:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 22:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sootoday.com

Advert. Alexa rank of 80,675. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Ad spam without the benefit of even the weblink. Sheesh. Speedy if possible. - Lucky 6.9 19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SooToday.com (note capital T) depending on the outcome of that VfD vote. Bearcat 01:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually...given the speedy consensus above, consider this speedy-redirected. The other vote can cover both articles anyway. Bearcat 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Enhsaihan

Appears to be a hoax; 7 google hits. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • nn at best. Delete. Agentsoo 19:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable -Soltak 23:54, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 22:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bambulance

Weird urban legend about a deer attacking a man. Google search for 'Bambulance deer' receives 213 hits; no pages link to this article. It may have a Snopes article, but I don't think it deserves a WP article. ral315 19:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I just don't see this as an encyclopedia article. -R. fiend 20:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Delete. Agentsoo 20:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 1 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 (1k, 2d [incl. nominator]). Scimitar parley 23:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dietmar Vahs

Non-notable professor at the University of Applied Sciences at Esslingen. Google for "Dietmar Vahs" Esslingen returns 215 hits, none of which are in English (my point being that if he were notable, surely one English site would have even limited info about him) ral315 19:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems nn to me too. Delete. Agentsoo 20:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: perhaps some time should be given for this article to grow. Many university professors are notable and this one published 11 books [23]. I agree the current article is poor. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep appears to be a published professor. Requires major expansion if kept. JamesBurns 03:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Das Ubermensche and Better Than Gandhi

Probable hoax or at best vanity. No results on AllMusic.com, even with the correct spelling (Das Ubermensch). No Google results (except this page). Agentsoo 19:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified (I can't). I'm adding Better Than Gandhi to this Vfd as its sole claim is to being their one album. --Doc (?) 21:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete by WP:MUSIC. Martg76 21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, seems like band vanity. Punkmorten 08:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soulscape

Non-notable band vanity. Nothing on allmusic.com. Barely a claim to notability at all. Agentsoo 19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • They claim "rave reviews" for their record, but if allmusic doesn't have them, I suspect it's a hoax. Delete unless verifiable and meets WP:MUSIC. Friday 20:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, but cleanup. Tagged and listed appropriately. -Splash 23:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forumer

Advertisement, anon deleted original delete request JPotter 19:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of POV in this article, but I think its salvageable. Three million hits a day implies notability. I think keep and cleanup. Agentsoo 20:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • cleanup; alexa rank in the 3,000s passes my notability threshold. But this is a terrible article as is. Brighterorange 20:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup per Brighterorange but damn, we should have added in a speedy criteria for articles that contain "leading providers" ... -Harmil 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and disambig -- there are other communities that call (or have called) themselves "Forumers". --OntarioQuizzer 22:02, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 12:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game Night

NN neologism. MrBland 20:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Not quite speedy territory, but certainly delete. Agentsoo 20:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. feydey 10:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ravulapalli

Vanity about the creator's surname. - ulayiti (talk) 20:18, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 12:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zain Eejaz

Vanity article by a 12-year-old, no factual content whatsoever. "Zain Eejaz" gets one Google hit, which is a profile on some forum. - ulayiti (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • A new low. Delete. Agentsoo 21:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ral315 21:43, August 1, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Levin

I'm a little torn on this one. He's a murder victim, which isn't quite notable, although there was some media attention, and a son of an CEO, which isn't quite notable. Do those two together make a notable bio? Right now I'm a Weak Delete. Icelight 20:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. His dad was CEO of Time, and it seems somewhat notable. Let me rewrite it a minute. ral315 21:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done with rewrite. Not great, but an okay stub. ral315 22:04, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if re-written. Somewhat notable since it was newsworthy. Courtkittie 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Could we perhaps have an article on the "Jonathan Levin murder case" or similar, and then redirect the various names of the people involved to that? I doubt any of these people's pages will ever be expanded past a stub otherwise. Keep for now though. Agentsoo 23:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly because his murder received significant media attention and substantive (as opposed to sensational) coverage at the time. Article needs discussion of consequences of case. Monicasdude 14:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it can be redirected if necessary but should still be kept Yuckfoo 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for a merge/redirect to Gerald Levin. Gazpacho 23:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Target boutique

Another low-currency neologism from the same source that brought us Targhetto. Denni☯ 20:48, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

  • Delete and ban user with vendetta against Target. ral315 21:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Suited for urbandictionary.com, not an encyclopedia Courtkittie 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Friday 23:48, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 12:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whisper campaign

A rant against Karl Rove. - ulayiti (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, since this is a real term. It should probably be completely rewritten. Binadot 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a dicdef followed by a rant is not a good start - (change to keep if entirely re-written by close) --Doc (?) 21:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have completely rewritten this article into a stub on the practice--keep rewritten version. Meelar (talk) 21:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the article's been rewritten. I didn't think it would be possible - good work Meelar. :) - ulayiti (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with revisions- nice work! ral315 21:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. NSR (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Meelar's rewrite. Well done Meelar.Capitalistroadster 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and hopefully expand, especially with verifiable examples from other political campaigns. -WCFrancis 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version and remove it from VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. I see nothing wrong with it as long as its balanced. Sleepnomore 03:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I have added the outlines of an encyclopedic entry and used less-contentious examples. --Mddake 04:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist, with props to Meelar for the rewrite. —RaD Man (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. --Michael Snow 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun Ho

This is a non-notable grad student vanity page. I recommend delete. Tobycat 21:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Yawn. Delete. ral315 22:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Double yawn. Delete. Agentsoo 23:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete!
unsigned vote by 202.156.2.187, who is the user that created the page in the first place. Can we speedy it now?Tobycat 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Cavella

An entry for an admittedly "little-known" songwriter. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. MrBland 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Deb 21:38, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 11:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Croxford

Delete and userfy as a clear vanity page. Being a partner in a media relations firm does not strike me as notable. If the company he works for is large enough, (based on the opinion of someone with a better sense of Aussie politics than myself) then it could get its own page. Icelight 21:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hiphoprepublican

Vanity?Deb 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity, neologism, unencyclopedic; take your pick -Soltak 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll pick neologism for $500, Alex... the answer is: Delete -Satori 22:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What is, Delete? ral315 22:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what? SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just silly... it's also very poorly written and spelled. Whether deleted or kept it cannot remain as it is! 192.250.97.6 10:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge --Allen3 talk 11:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Belgrano

Should be merged with Belgrano. We can consider whether the general or the ship should have the vacant name afterwards. Septentrionalis 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merges don't have to come here Be bold - anyway it is now a redirect, which is better. --Doc (?) 23:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I just had a conflict with Doc as I was writing this: I did the merge and have "been bold", creating a redir to Belgrano. There is no point VfD'ing this as there is zero chance of this page actually being deleted. If someone thinks the redirect should go elsewhere, they can change it. Personally I think this is the best/least ambigious solution. Bobbis 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you; I did not merge it, because merges are not obviously encouraged - but they should be! Septentrionalis 16:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo

Previously deleted through VfD. However, it was rightfully undeleted as VfD did not reach a proper concensus. I am re-nominating for deletion so that a concensus may be reached. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:59 UTC, 1 August 2005

  • Delete - For non-notablility and because Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:59 UTC, 1 August 2005
  • Delete non-notable, unencyclopedic -Soltak 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Denni☯ 23:55, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am reworking this article so that it describes the verifiable and notable documentary about this couple. Pburka 01:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. This couple and the event of their deaths was extremely notable. Strongly urge previous voters to reconsider their votes, as saying non-notable makes them look a bit silly! I would equate it with a Bosnian urging the deletion of Beltway sniper attacks, for example. Pcb21| Pete 07:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - famous case during the war, not just another couple of casualties - Skysmith 08:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I reread the article and feel exactly the same. A horrible incident, but completely non-notable. As the initiating user stated Wikipedia is not a memorial. -Soltak 16:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The world at large has found this incident notable, hence the coverage on the news for days at the time, the documentary, etc, etc, whether you personally don't find it notable or not. At Wikipedia, we don't do original research or indeed hold original opinions on the notability of an event. If the world at large says it notable, then it is. Don't you remember the news reports? Pcb21| Pete 17:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • What I remember is pretty irrelevant. Wikipedia is still not a memorial. -Soltak 17:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • And this article is not a memorial piece. It is an encyclopedia article about a historic event. Not a perfect article, maybe, but that's no reason for deletion. Pcb21| Pete 20:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is also not paper. Besides I don't agree that this article constitute a "memorial" these people do have "a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". Lots of people are notable, not for who they where, but for the attention theyr deaths caused. Jean Charles de Menezes, Amadou Diallo and Terri Schiavo to list a few. Be mindfull of systemic bias when considering the notoriety of a subject. --Sherool 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that I'm biased at all. To assert that my vote was based on the fact that I'm not Eastern European is absurd. As far as the individuals you listed are concerned, each of their deaths is entirely different. Menezes is notable as it was a total error and was caused by a 'trigger happy' attitude brought on by the fear and hysteria of the London bombings. Diallo's death deals with the disturbingly pervasive issue of police brutality in American. Schiavo's death became a political issue and talking point and is therefore notable. As I mentioned previous, the deaths of the couple in this article is a tragedy. Unfortunately, it has nothing distinctly notable that sets it apart from other civilian casualties of war. -Soltak 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How many civilian casialties of war was picked up as headline news across the world and spawned documentaries and songs about theyr fate? They became a "symbol" of the conflict, and hence notable. Just like Tank man was no more or less notable than the other Chinese dissidents, but because pictures of him was picked up in the media he became a notable symbol of the conflict (except he didn't die (AFAIK)), another example of a casualty of war that became notable was the Viet cong prisoner Nguyen Van Lem who was executed on camera during the Vietnam war. Besides "Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo" score 14,000 hits on Google, and CNN have a special page about the couple. IMHO that set them quite a bit apart from the average civilian casualty of war. --Sherool 23:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The very fact that you write "it has nothing distinctly notable that sets it apart from other civilian casualties of war" shows your are arguing out of ignorance of the event. Apologies if this sounds harsh; but I only think it is right if the administrator evaluating this debate to bears it in mind when weighing up the votes. Pcb21| Pete 20:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • What's that supposed to mean? You're smarter than me so your vote should count more? -Soltak 21:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Now come on. You know that's not what I wrote or meant. You've more or less said yourself that you hadn't heard of the event before reading about it in this article, and making your own personal judgements about the notability of the event without a wider understanding. Be big enough to admit that it is possible that you made a mistake. Pcb21| Pete 05:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Pcb21, Skysmith. It was a notorious event and well illustrates the life in Sarajevo during the war. I wonder how important someone has to be to be notable enough.--Jyril 20:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is true that the individuals themselves would be non-notable.--Jyril 22:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. 14300 hits from Google for "Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo", 127 for "Admira Ismić", and 97 for "Boško Brkić".--Jyril 22:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It appears that most hits come from http://discardedlies.com .--Jyril 22:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it's notable. Give me a break. Everyking 08:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously.  Grue  11:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page is about a documentary, a documentary that tells a story that's notable and important. There's nothing in the article to suggest that it is a memorial, but rather, it gives the information about a documentary, and succinctly summarizes the story told by the documentary. Jason 18:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment: it occurred to me that one very good marker of notability is the fact that a documentary has been made about the event; that's a reasonable indicator that the event was notable. Jason 23:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I too believe that of course, this is notable. Moriori 22:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sad as their story is Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 03:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable. --FOo 04:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HVo Devoted Gamers

Delete clancruft getting about 9 useful Googles. -Splash 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable; doesn't even bother to include one of those external links which we all so much enjoy. Flowerparty talk 00:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason DuMars

Delete Despite his claims, non-notable vanity. As a musician, he fails to meet WP:MUSIC with only one (minor) album and no major tours. His site has an Alexa ranking of over one million (and falling) and so is not notable there. Unless there can be some indepentant verification of notablity, I think this one needs to go, or at least be userfide. Icelight 22:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable vanity that doesn't even meet WP:MUSIC standards. -Soltak 23:51, 1 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 --Allen3 talk 11:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Van Noorden

Linked to from one other page. 67 hits, a number of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Not notable, in the slightest Kiand 23:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete far less notable than this RVN.  Grue  11:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubbleman's Board of Evil Robot Stuff

Non notable web forum. Not much info apart from Wikipedia mirrors. NSR (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Retrosexual

Apparently this article was VFDed about a year ago, but it's still basically a dictionary definition of a phrase that's basically an insult. More suitable for Wiktionary IMO. Blackcats 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could possibly be considered neologism. In any event, it doesn't merit an article. -Soltak 23:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. 21-thousand google hits ought to do it. —RaD Man (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The number of Google hits isn't the only criteria. I'm sure a lot of individual slang words have far more Google hits, but do not merit their own articles on Wikipedia. This article was VFDed almost a year ago, but it's still nothing more than a dictionary definition. There simply isn't much to say about "retrosexual" except that it's a slang term that metrosexuals invented to describe non-metrosexual men. There's no group of people that actively identifies itself as "retrosexuals," nor is there any group that's known by most other people as "retrosexuals." It's simply a neologism that retrosexuals came up with as a lable for all men who aren't in their group. As such, the article should be deleted, turned into a redirect to metrosexual (where all neccesary brief discussion can take place), and then protected. --Blackcats 06:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or, atleast, Merge with metrosexual) JDR 18:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 03:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with metrosexual. I agree that it doesn't warrant its own page and could be better served in Wiktionary. - Apocaplops 16:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with metrosexual. Maybe add to wikitictionary as well. --Apyule 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. --Scimitar parley 23:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as suggested. David | Talk 23:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polishsoccer.com

Non-notable website/forums. Alexa rank 960,517. MrBland 23:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

    • It should be kept. It's a reputable source for polish culture in the 21st century. My local paper has listed it on a soccer links site and has talked about it in the paper. It's how other cultures can be introduced to polacy on the internet. A very good way to meet and share ideas. Non-notable? your non-notable. Keep it. --Ryankozlowski 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This vote represents Ryankozlowski only three edits --Allen3 talk 02:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-notable? Not notable? It was the first site to break the Olisadebe story, it was quoted in the two major Chicago daily's when Poland played Mexico in May.--Milicz 19:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a forum with 600 members is not notable, and not encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, non encylopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be kept, it's informative and true! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.194.241.46 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 August 2005.
  • Good site w/ some kick as polish guys who know their soccer.

Come by and visit, post, speak your mind (as long as you don't mind some constructive criticism). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.127.49 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 August 2005.

  • AMAZING WEBSITE..VOTE TO KEEP UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHHH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.33.129 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 August 2005.
  • A vital resource for anyone wishing to join Polishsoccer.com. Must be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.115.32 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 August 2005.
  • polishsoccer.com is the most visited forum dealing with Polish soccer Keep It. MK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.195.2.27 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 2 August 2005.
  • Keep it up, if anybody wants to learn about or discuss Polish Soccer come by and sign up.

Most up to date forum on Polish soccer in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.149.230 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC).

  • Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Until i joined Polishsoccer.com i used to go out drink and smoke marijuana, but now thanks to Polishsoccer.com i spend all of my free time posting on the forum. My friends used to be Maryjane, Johnny and Jack, but now Chow, Ryan Kozolowski, and Legia Piotr are my only friends. Thank You Polishsoccer.com/forum for saving my life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.34.164.215 (talk • contribs) 16:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep it: It's a wonderfully written piece about the only Polish soccer resource with English aswell as Polish language content on the net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.174.76.231 (talk • contribs) 16:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC).
  • Should be kept. Is the largest online resource of Polish soccer in English. Like, come on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.90.194 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. If you want people to know about Polish soccer, write Wikipedia articles about the leagues and teams and provide a link to this site. An article for the site is completely superfluous, unless the site somehow becomes influential at a later date. --Howcheng 23:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the meta-puppet voting here, and lack of notability. --Kiand 12:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Kiand, that is bullshit, fine, call it non-notable, but no sockpuppet voting is going on here and an unfounded accusation like that shouldn't be here. It shouldn't be a cause for deletion, and it shouldn't enter into the minds of thsoe voting, because it is untrue. All the voters with IP's are simply Polishsoccer.com members who don't have Wikipedia membership, and this sort of introduction surely won't entice them at trying to enhance the Polish soccer section of Wikipedia. Good day sir.--Milicz 17:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I set meta-puppet, not sockpuppet. And what you've just described is -exactly- what meta puppetry is. --Kiand 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear, who came up with that term? And how could it possibly apply to any Wiki project? We want outsiders using Wikipedia, it is sort of the point, anyone who comes on here is a user.--Milicz 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet seems to currently refer to them as "meatpuppets", though that could be vandalism. Either way, its there. Kiand 22:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn forum, website promo. JamesBurns 03:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care

Non notable Canadian nursing home. Almost a Spam. Klonimus 02:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep—Well known centres and charitable foundation. — Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_August_1_dfc8.html"