Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. All of the rename suggestions have been redirected back to the original title, so I'll not move it (and there's no gathering around any one name here anyway). -Splash 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by date of nationhood

The lead of the article pretty well sums up the reasons for why the list should be deleted:

1. Nation-building is a long evolutionary process. It is therefore practically impossible to come up with a single date for a nation's "birth".
2. The following list is mainly based on data published by the CIA, and is therefore restricted to nations whose independence is recognised by the USA.
3. The situation is futher complicated by the confusion between the terms nation (genereally considered an ethnic or cultural grouping) and state (an independent political entity).

There is no way to make this list useful, let alone NPOV. What makes it particularily biased is the chronological order which suggests that some nations are "older" than others. Still, many nations are listed more than once, with different dates.

I know many people have put considerable effort into the development of this list, but this cannot be an excuse for keeping a useless and biased article on WP. – Kpalion (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – Kpalion (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful and informative. As for your objections:
  1. Yes, it certainly is. That's why several nations are listed with more than one date. I consider it very appropriate.
  2. Since creation of this list, it has been greatly expanded with data from other sources. Btw, "nations whose independence is recognised by the USA" is pretty much the same as "nations whose independence is recognized by some country", with Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Taiwan, and Western Sahara being the only contemporary exceptions I can think of.
  3. This is a purely technical issue, that can be solved by rewording the introduction, or perhaps renaming the article.

  Naive cynic 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious keep Trollderella 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valid encyclopedic article.Amren ^(talk) 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - very useful, cleanup issues are not vfd issues -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. This just needs cleaning up. Jaxl | talk 01:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Date of Nationhood cannot be "one" specific year in many cases especially in older countries in new ones yes like in Brasil everyone knows when Dom João declared independence from Portugal or in the U.S.A. also but like on what "date" did someplace like Egypt become a nation plus Egypt as it is now has nothing to do with the Egypt of the Pharos and same with Rome and Greece so this article is too politically biassed and misleading.Wiki brah 05:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Usefulness should override the technicalities Tintin 05:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : As per Tintin above Manik Raina 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Naive cynic. MCB 07:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• cautious keep, but subject to extensive cleanup. It is interesting, but it is intellectually lazy and it should incorporate discussion around the various types and stages of statehood. Peeper 09:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep --MicroFeet 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. List of largely arbitrary dates, inherently POV and very problematic, as the term "nation" is not clearly defined. Keeps out nations that do not have achieved a "national state" and includes some strange entries such as the German Democratic Republic, which I've never heard anyone consider a nation. Martg76 15:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If this misleading article is actually to be kept, I strongly urge a move to List of countries by date of statehood as suggested by Roodog2k below. Martg76 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and remove delete tag, ignore previous editor.

  D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Instead of suggesting to suppress discussion, why don't you give a reason for your vote? Martg76 16:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue's been settled. Martg76 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Typical candidate for cleanup. 129.215.194.205 16:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitly needs some work, nothing that can't be fixed HoratioVitero 17:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (sorry 'bout that)
  • • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could need cleanup, but the concept of nation is fairly well understood. German Democratic Republic, aka. East Germany is not a strange entity; it sent people to the Olympics (e.g. 1968 Summer Olympics) and was recognized as a nation for decades. --Prosfilaes 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we shouldn't confuse statehood with nationhood. You'll have a hard time finding any German considering East Germany a nation, under whatever definition. The rename suggested below makes certainly more sense than keeping the page as it is. Martg76 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Naive cynic. --Dysepsion 17:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful and interesting. But hopefully some of the conflict that occurs on other pages on what constitutes statehood can be avoided. Rx StrangeLove 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Naive cynic. This article just needs some editing work, but could be useful and definitely encyclopedic. --Blackcap | talk 19:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Changed vote after reading Roodog's points below. --Blackcap | talk 23:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• RENAME Good article, bad name. List of countries by date of statehood would be MUCH more accurate. For instance, believe it or not, several Nations exist within the United States, although this is an arguable point. Nine Nations of North America is one argument. Navajo Nation is another argument. JMHO, tho! Roodog2k 19:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Blackcap | talk 20:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, for reasons other have given above. Evil Eye 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep

  Journalist ^C.Image:Smilie.gif ^{Holla @ me!}

• Rename to List of countries by date of statehood, per Roodog2k above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Possibly rename, if the editors of that article have a better name for it. This is definitely useful information. --Idont Havaname 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - useful and interesting trivia. Agreed it should be renamed. 23skidoo 05:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename But do it to List of countries by date of independence please. While it is admittedly a U.S.-centric perspective, statehood does not make me think of independent sovereignity. Caerwine 14:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm game for that, its better than nationhood. Roodog2k 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's no good either. I'm afraid you can't escape a US-centric perspective. Nationhood or statehood not always equals independence. Many countries have existed since times immemorial but later lost and regained independence. For instance, Poland has existed since mid-10th century and the traditional date of Poland's statehood is 966. But because Poland was partitioned in the late 18th century and regained sovereignty after WW1, the date of independence is November 11, 1918. Poland's just an example, there are many more countries with similar histories. Perhaps, if the list is to stay (as it clearly is) it might be good to split it into (at least) to lists: one for countries by date of nationhood, and one for countries by (most recently regained) independence. The US, then, would be near the bottom of the former, and near the top of the latter. – Kpalion (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• How can you ppl consider a useful list that as no valid arguments. Do you think modern Egypt sees the birth of its nation in Ancient Egypt? come on! I've renamed the article I hope all the participants of this vote clean the article, it is really an ashaming article for wikipedia, that others can use to discredit this encyclopedia, that I think overall is much more thruthful than the Microsoft one for instance. --Pedro 18:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not move the article while the vote is in progress. And BTW, Pedro, what is your vote? – Kpalion (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • • • • I didnt saw it was in Vfd, i just moved. o.o, I think the best is to redirect and clean the article. -Pedro 10:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Pedro, how could you possibly not know it was in VfD when A) there's a huge template at the top of the page, saying it's in VfD, and B) you actually voted on the VfD page, just three posts above this one? --Blackcap | talk 16:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
            • I saw it immidiatly, so what? It should be redirected again ending this vfd. --Pedro 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
              • O.K., I'm going to start with the problems one by one. The problem of why shouldn't I redirect/move a VfD page is dealt with in both WP:GVFD, an article you should have read before voting on a VfD, and in the message I left you on your talk page. Problem 2 is that moving this article is somewhat contentious and is not an opinion shared by the majority, some people want it moved to a different place, AND the title your moved it to is misspelled (capitalized "independence") and is disagreed with for various reasons. Your going ahead and moving it anyway shows a lack of respect for other's opinions. I also mentioned this on your talk page. Problem 3 is that you lied and said that you didn't know it was in VfD (three posts up), and when I called you on it, you said, "so what? It should be redirected again," which I take to mean that you don't paticularly care for the opinions of others, and that you didn't bother to read my message, which is what talk pages are for, or WP:DP and WP:GVFD. That's "so what." --Blackcap | talk 16:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Pedro did go ahead and move the article, unfortunately. I'll move it back and change the new List of countries by date of Independence, which is what he moved it to, to a redirect page. --Blackcap | talk 00:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Never mind. Just tried and it looks like I can't do that. Well, that's unfortunate. Instead, I'm going to put a notice on the talk page with a link to this VfD so that at least there's some way to get here. --Blackcap | talk 00:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • You have to be an admin to move it back. – Kpalion (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Yep. Is the egg showing? --Blackcap | talk 16:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep "Difficult to NPOV" is not a reason to delete an article. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Definitely useful information. However, it could use a renaming. PBP 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - when all levels of meatpuppetry are ignored, the Wikipedian community has shown a consensus opinion. FCYTravis 03:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stardestroyer.net (3rd VFD)

Delete Vanity article. In the alternative, merge into existing ST v. ST article. Tanizaki 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Of this user's 64 edits, 52 are on this VfD, 3 on the TrekBBS VfD and 6, are on his and other's talk pages, talking about these VfDs. This accounts for 61 of his 64 (95.3%) contributions as of this writing.)--Vagodin 03:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Neocapitalist 00:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Been there, done that, got the t-shirt: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stardestroyer.net. Delete, please. --Calton | Talk 00:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Again. How many times must we go through this, children? It is no vanity article, that has been established time and time and time again.Chardok (User has 8 contributions, 5 on SD.net VfDs and one vandalising User:Revprez - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )

• Strong Keep Contrary to the opinions of a few, this page is not a vanity page. It has non-mmembers of SD.net contributing to it. It has information which directly attacks the culture of SD.net (which is definately not vanity related). SD.net is still a known site in relation to the STvsSW debate as well as Evolution vs Creationism. There is no rational reason to delete the page. It has survived two previous mailicious VFD attempts. Alyeska 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep For reasons already mentioned. --Vagodin 01:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously. Trollderella 01:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep For crying out loud. If you don't like it, don't look at the page. --SpringheelJack (User has 7 contributions, 4 of which are on SD.net VfDs - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )

• Weak delete - can't see how this belongs in an encyclopedia --Doc (?) 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep See the archive. Neocapitalist 02:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)(Since June 2005 User's only edits have been to SD.net VfDs - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )

• Keep So Strong It's Adamantine Really. Three VFDs in three months, and this one's so illegal the joke's not funny anymore? I don't even have to go into the reasons why this article should stay (and why constantly nominating this article for VFD is pure butthattery and asininity), as they've been hashed and rehashed last VFD. E. Sn0 22:11, 24 August 2005 (CDT)

  Vote stricken; User:E. Sn0 doesn't exist. Radiant_>|< 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's already survived two VFDs and I see no reason why its validity should suddenly change in the matter of a month. -Robgea 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (User has 55 edits: 26 article, 18 talk, 11 wikipedia. Nandesuka 03:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• Strong Keep The fact that it's survived several other VFDs should tell you something, people. Badme 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (User has 2 contributions, both to this VfD - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )

• Keep Here we go again . . . and again . . . and again. Look, folks, look at the talk page and article. It should be plainly apparent that the article is not a pro-site "vanity" article.GMT 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)User has ~40 edits, nearly all of which related to this article; 3rd edit was a vote to the previous VFD. Radiant_>|< 11:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge All cruft articles on any wikispace until the end of time to this article since it appears to be the holiest site in all of Cruftistan or Cruftonia or wherever the cruftinators live, then Weak Keep that article, the million plus hits on this mecca of cruftdom make it for me. Also, did you mean adamantium, E. Sno? Good new adjective otherwise. Karmafist 03:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep due to multiple VfDs. Andrew pmk 03:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see how "no census" equals "survived". It reads likes a bad resume, complete with a timeline of Wong's fan fiction and domain name purchases. Oh, and the traffic stats! Can someone make a case as to why the site merits an article other than "It's a ST v SW site"? st-v-sw.net did not have an entry last time I checked. TanizakiSee vote immediately following nomination. Nandesuka 12:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no consesus is not a "keep result: and this article is not encyclipedic.--nixie 04:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough for its own article. This and previous VfDs are plagued by sock/meatpuppets. Wikipedia is not an arena for your childish forum arguments. the wub "?/!" 08:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and protect against re-creation, note sockpuppetry keep votes. Proto t c 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Putting aside the issue of meatpuppets (And for the record, I will admit that I am a member of the forum, though I rarely post), I fail to see why that should mean that the arguements some of these people have made in support of the article should be ignored. The site seems more than notable enough for its own article, it's clearly not a vanity article as the creator of this VfD claimed, and if it's not encyclopedic, then I suggest the detractors work together with the supporters to turn it into an article which is, rather than delete out of hand. --Mukashi 10:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC) (as of this writing, 77 edits: 17 article, 49 talk + user talk, 11 Wikipedia. Nandesuka 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• Strong Keep This is just getting ridiculous. --DaveJB 11:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 3 VFD come on people. This article could be very important to some one confused (like I was) about what stardestroyer.net was about. The forum has over 2000 members and there is a wealth of information on multiple topics. Also the VFD was started by Tanizaki a user banned from SD.net for trolling. The VFD is revenge.Elfwood 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:WEB. (and please keep comments on the talk page). Radiant_>|< 11:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN, Vanity. --Botsie 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB standards. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Smells like teen vanity. Nandesuka 12:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as doesn't meet WP:WEB standards Sliggy 13:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:WEB. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:56, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

• Delete. Normally I wouldn't vote on this article, but I want to cancel out one of the socks. "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded".--Scimitar ^parley 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. per above. Someone ought to nominate TrekBBS as well.Dottore So 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not seeing the notability. That thread doesn't make me all that sympathetic to their case, to say the least. --Apostrophe 17:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• SPEEDY Keep for the third time. Come on people, it has only been 2 weeks since the last VFD on this article.Gateman1997 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• 'keep please this is a popular website not the gnaa Yuckfoo 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Redgrittybrick 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep About a third of the language is mine. --Rev Prez 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever, with an Alexa rank in the middle of nowhere. Martg76 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Radiant above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Firstly, this VfD is a violation of VfD policy and therefore shouldnt even exist. Secondly, WP:WEB is only a guideline, not sufficient grounds for deletion. Thirdly, there are multiple forums that have wikipedia entries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacebattles.com being a perfect example of a very similar website. I am a banned member of stardestroyer.net (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=72553&start=175), and therefore I cannot be said to have any pro-SDN bias. In my expert opinion as a former member of SDN and longtime member of the broader versus community, I can say that SDN is noteworthy, it is in fact the most noteworthy of similar websites. PredatorX 11:24, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12) As of this writing, user has 6 edits, all on VfD. Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--Aranda56 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) <small(user has 59 edits, about half of which are on VfD. --Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• MURDER I fucking hate this fanboy sock puppet shit. -HX 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The Article serves it's purpose, and gives information about a website and forums, like many other articles. --kietotheworld 00:42, 26 August 2005 (GMT) (as of this vote, user has 3 edits. Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 23:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable--Cybren 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Note this user only has 12 edit and this is their first in 4 months.Gateman1997 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest possible Keep. 3 VFDs in 3 months is nothing but a witch hunt. -- Iceberg3k 01:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Another VfD? I'm not a fan of much of the SDN community (and no, I'm not a member, either), but it's a notable ST vs SW site. Ergbert 01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- Yep, another one. Wikipedia is not the place for trolls to get petty revenge when they get banned. SAMAS 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• weak Keep per Iceberg. This shouldn't have been renominated so soon, especially not by an anon. Oh well, at least it's got a SWW entry-LtNOWIS 03:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm a Star Wars/Trek fan, but come on. An article about a minor website that speculates on which fictional government body is superior. This is a no-brainer. It's like 4th grade: "Superman can beat up Spiderman and my dad is bigger than your dad!" And a site with an Alexa Rating of 300K is not notable. -PlainSight 03:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I dont see a valid reason to delete SD.nets entry from Wiki. Sounds like certain former members of SD's site are merely vindictive and spiteful. It's obvious why they were banned in the first place. Vendetta_SB 06:40, 26 August 2005 (GMT) (User has 5 contributions, 4 on SD.net VfDs - Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC) )

• Delete. I agree, the website is not notable enough to merit their own article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep For the same reasons given many times, this is merely a personal vendetta that has resulted in this most sad and pathetic attempt for "revenge", the wikipedia is not a place for personal politics. His Divine Shadow 06:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)User has ~10 edits. Radiant_>|< 08:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I see no valid reason for the deletion of this article. It is both informative and provides good background information for those interested in the ST vs SW debate itself. --PuGGerCheese 08:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)User's only edit. Radiant_>|< 08:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Notable forum, and should not have been renominated for deletion so soon. Academic Challenger 08:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. for various reasons, including those listed above and those posted before. Mike_Castaldo 09:46, 26 August 2005 (EST) 30 of this user's 31 edits are voting on Stardestroyer.net-related VfDs. His 1 article space edit was restoring a VfD notice on to an article. --Nandesuka 14:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Both Star Trek and Star Wars are a significant part of our culture and the conflict between the Trekaholics and Jedi-wannabees is notable. It would appear that this site is a major part of that conflict. At best, one might make a case for merging this article into the Star Trek versus Star Wars article, but outright deletion is clearly inappropriate. Caerwine 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC) If no one's going to put a catty remark in small type next to my vote, I may as well do it myself. Caerwine 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)--62.252.0.7 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC) -meow-

• Strong Keep. This isn't some minor website, it's the Star Trek vs. Star Wars resource. WayneC 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - web forums trying to "defend" their listing on Wikipedia are tiresome. Merge into Star Trek versus Star Wars, but get rid of this flashpoint of pointless controversy. JesseW 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - As mentioned above this is not a minor website making its own vanity page. --ERTW 21:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC) User's 6th edit. Flowerparty ^talk 21:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As has been said time and again in the repeated VfD's on this page, it is an important part of the ST vs. SW's scene and is more than worthy of note. (forgot to log in) --Fearghul 23:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 11 edits Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The VfD is baseless. Various reasons for deletion are without sufficient arguments. --Yenchin 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC) 6 edits Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 04:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how this article is not notable. 郵便箱 05:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC) User has 86 edits total, 43 of which are in the article space. --Nandesuka 12:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Three VFD's and it's still here, there is no reason for this vote. Urger5:01 EST 27 Aug 2005 7 edits Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This VFD crap is getting ridiculous and abused. If it passes this VfD, I request that the page be protected. BTW, I'd admit it up front before some idiot slanders me. I'm a member of SDN, true. But I've also been on Wiki for a full year and have made about 76 edits in all. I just don't post a lot. If you ever find me on SDN you will also notice the number of posts as being disproportionately low to the time I've been a member (continued below).

This will be the 77th and the first I bothered to waste on a VfD. The website it describes is a cardinal one in the STvsSW debate on par with the SWTC (which no one tries to delete so far, I think) and the USVSD (which AFAIK does not have its own article here). Since we decided to have a STvsSW debate article, the discussion of the topic would hardly be complete without a strong mention of this site. The article should be expanded, not deleted (continued).

Whether this is "vanity" should not come into it. If the article is about a useful topic, it stays. If not, it goes. If it has the improper tone ("vanity"), negotiate the edits. That's all. Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC) only four edits in the last two months. Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC) So, if you can't get me for the total, you'd only count my Recents? Hmm...

• Keep and Protect I have carefully examined the guidelines that recommend against vanity pages at Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines in comparision to the page in question. Stardestroyer.net has a large amount of information on technology used in the two fictional universes, as well as some information on general science issues. Given the popularity of these two franchises (how many Americans don't know who Darth Vader and Captain Kirk are?), this information would likely be of interest to many. This site can also be a rough environment for those just entering, and some forewarning is appropriate. I myself do not like the environment present at the site, and do not participate in the forum there whatsoever. However, the philosophy behind wikipedia is free access to information, even about topics we find disagreeable. If SD.net is controversial, then its article should be edited to ensure impartiaility, not deleted - an activity practiced extensively in that page. As for my use of Wikipedia, I browse it frequently, but I seldom edit, for I usually find the author has adequately covered the subject, and any additional information is unnecessary. OmegaPaladin 07:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC) New votes go at the bottom. My apologies - OmegaPaladin This user has 7 edits. Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC).

• Delete. I would agree with above comment that there are other similar articles worthy of consideration on the same grounds. Balancer 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User's 30th edit or so, many of them being to all 3 VfDs Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC) 4 are on the VfDs for this article, but 13 belong to the Star Trek versus Star Wars article, worth noting as related. Vote was 29th edit as this particular registered user.Balancer 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Protect. There is no good reason for this page to be deleted. Having survived 2(or is it three?) VfDs in the recent past, the suspect nature of the user who started the VfD, and the fact that Star Wars and Star Trek are well known franchises, and that SD.net is well known in the Versus community, it should be kept, and protected to prevent further vandalism from those bearing grudges.

In the case that the article be deleted, I will request that the STvSW.com article be deleted for the same reasons. And feel free to attempt to discount me simply because I'm new, and not a member of SD.net. --NoXion 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User's first edit Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. The original article stands. The reason it's being deleted, or attempted to, is because the person asking for the deletion is just trying to cause trouble. The site's fine, the article is fine, he is just wasting your time because he was banned from the we-board and now he's here trying to0 s**t-stir. Ignore him.WeyounTDB 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User has 10 edits, 6 of them being to the TrekBBS VfD and this one Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article is nothing but a vanity article promoting a web site. The points above that the site covers material that would be of interest to many is beside the point. Those other subjects should be well covered by WP. The question here is, should there be an article about this web site on WP. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and an article on a web discussion forum has no place in an encyclopedia. --DavidConrad 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Absolute KEEP & Protect This articles deserves to remain!Urizen 00:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) User's 13th edit Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This VfD is obviously a personal vendetta, and in any case repeated VfDs are a violation of Wikipedia policy. WyldStallionRyder 08:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) User's fourth edit. Radiant_>|< 09:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. The RickK Threshold of Sockpuppetry has clearly been exceeded and in any case, this is a textbook definition of nnanity. There's jillions of forums with '2,000" members. FCYTravis 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can name each of those sockpuppets on the discussion page, and provide your evidence that they are sockpuppets. After all, sockpuppetry is a bannable offense, so you must have strong evidence to back up your claims.
    • Ug.... sockpuppets in and of themselves are not a bannable offense. If you use a lot of them to influence votes for example you might get blocked for a couple days. Meatpuppets, which is what we are talking about here, is not bannable at all (they just don't count on VfD). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Flowerparty ^talk 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka)

Delete Article is far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar. It should be deleted or at best reduced to a paragraph and merged with Fred Phelps which itself suffers from most of the same problems.

As it stands right now it is "6,216 words of toilsome reading—a cheap, tacky, wearisome, and confused jumble of crude nonsense." 66.32.97.69 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• All reasons given are matters for the talk page, not VfD. Keep CanadianCaesar 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, trolling nomination. The same user has nominated the article on FAC, where s/he describes it as "well-written and packed full of factual, verified information." Har har. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sigh. Trollderella 01:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP. All of those are cleanup issues. Very deserving of an article. ~~ N (t/c) 01:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - nomination in bad faith. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DarkWolf

Nn neologism. --fvw* 00:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is not a deletion criteria, but this is not a verifiable or factual article. Trollderella 01:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 01:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Alf 03:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. This word is not in wide use and should therefore not be listed here. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nneologism. the wub "?/!" 09:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is this some kind of furry crap? -HX
• Delete neologism. Lomedae 00:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 03:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Musical Project, An

Non-notable band. Thunderbrand 01:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thunderbrand 01:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Alf 03:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted Wikipedia Article, An — mendel ☎ 21:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plyrics

A website with a forum attached to it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs2000 | Talk 01:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless re-written. No particularly useful content at present, but the site's alexa rank is a surprisingly respectable 6,059. Flowerparty ^talk 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. 138,000 google results. That plus its Alexa rank may be grounds for notability, but it would definitely need a rewrite. Jaxl | talk 02:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jaxl | talk 03:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. The content here is very poor and, if cleaned up and pared back to the facts...there'd be nothing but the link which would be grounds for a speedy. Being a website doesn't make you more notable than most of the other 8 billion websites. -Splash 03:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it, revive it, then delete it again for good measure. Non-encyclopedic article can serve no purpose but to promote their web site. --DavidConrad 03:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory or advertising service. Isomorphic 04:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 08:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if they hate n00bs so much, why are they advertising? the wub "?/!" 11:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a relatively popular website that I use rather frequently, but it's lacking any real content at the moment. --Tothebarricades 23:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but leave the possibility of rewrites/resubmissions open, as it is definitely a notable site. A non-POV entry would be acceptable IMHO. -HX 23:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shem^(talk) 00:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NPOV and original research. Also, see Splash. Lomedae 00:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This page uses words like "n00bs" indicating that it is advertising. This is what the article appears to be. There are also several opinions in the article as well.--Rschen7754
  • Sorry, didn't realize that it was an actual "word". My opinion remains. --Rschen7754 22:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamoomba

Sigh. More silliness that can't be speedied. Denni☯ 01:55, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

It is silly, as is much of the cultural heft that needs to be cataloged. The question is not whether it is silly or not but whether, first, if it is legitimate, which is appears to be, and second, whether it is large enough to warrant inclusion into Wikipedia. Now, granted, this thing's not getting as many hits as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Nor is it pertinent to a particularly tawdry current affair) but it is something. As a historian, I have to say the worst part of studying primary sources is when the writer neglected to include information because, at the time, it was considered inconsequential to him. I say include it, until the Jamoombas of the world are overloading Wikipedia, at which point, if it becomes an issue of performance, then consider it for deletion. Were this a self-aggrandizing personal page or simply an attempt to create such a cultural indicator by seeding it within Wikipedia, then I'd be in favor of deleting. Otherwise, why expend so much effort to point out that a silly thing is silly.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.128.151.152 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2005 August 25 (UTC).

• Delete. Silly. Flowerparty ^talk 02:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nonsense. Jaxl | talk 02:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought that this was nonsense meeting speedy criteria."Healing power of cheese" -- WCFrancis 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too cheesey for me. Alf 02:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Mighty though his wrath may be, I vote delete. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this drivel because it's so much smaller than the spaghetti monster would be wrong IMHO. Where do we draw the line? This seems to be genuine, why not keep it? I don't particularily want this to be in Wikipedia but I feel it needs to be. --Sturmy 9:14, August 25, 2005
• Verily, O Roadster. Delete and consider blocking user as possible sockpuppet of that "Wiki-cheese" vandal that's been dropping by lately. - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy sending it to BJAODN now. I expect "Healing Power of Cheese on Wheels" or "Cheese Grand Cru" will be coming around anyday now.Karmafist 03:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — total nonsense Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}

I wrote the original, which has been edited by someone else, as a parody of the Flying Spaghettie Monster - cheese does actually have healing power!! See http://www.fitwise.com/Power_Foods.asp. I believe it deserves exactly the same fate as FSM. 04:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, don't BJAODN, unlike Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, this hasn't earned widespread media coverage and notice. (Plus it isn't as funny.) the wub "?/!" 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inane nonsense. Dottore So 16:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Give me break. If you want to write nonsense, go to Uncyclopedia. --Lomedae 00:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. This most certainly is a candidate for speedy deletion. It's filled with patent nonsense, and amounts to little more than an advertisement for a gaming forum (check out the "external link"). I have no problem with it going to BJAODN, but the assertion that it can't be speedied verges on patent nonsense as well.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 01:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What the hell? ~GMH 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment User 69.19.14.29 has been removing votes on this page and replacing them with his own nonsense. Please be aware. Denni☯ 19:22, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Keep or Jamoomba's wrath will befall your pets and possessions. Jamoomba's wrath is usually focused on one's fridge, so beware, lest ye end up with a nasty intestinal infection.
• BJAODN or Delete. Biased POV anyway. --Rschen7754 22:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population cycle

Original research at very least, and I'm still not going to be saving my nasal mucous. Denni☯ 02:38, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

• delete nonsense. -- WCFrancis 02:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep excellent article now. Good job, kudos to Capitalistroadster. -- WCFrancis 13:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jaxl | talk 02:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nice work, Capitalistroadster. Jaxl | talk 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep (changed vote from delete) following excellent rescue of nonsense of Capitalroadster. Alf 11:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
• Keep — Its certainly looking more encyclopedic. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
• Comment It's nonsense at the moment but a valid subject for a legitimate article. For example, the Lemming article links there. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten the article so that it refers to population cycles. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, rewritten article is excellent. Nice work Capitalistroadster! the wub "?/!" 11:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep agree with the wub Dlyons493 11:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks to Capitalistroadster for re-writing it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the rewrite looks pretty sound to me! Peeper 13:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep this, as pperos. Trollderella 16:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like so many other things colaboration has turned it into something worthwhile HoratioVitero 17:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 04:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep it is really rewritten nicely Yuckfoo 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well done, sir. Ah, the beauty of VfD when it works! Removing my nomination. Denni☯ 23:57, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, close nomination please nice Mr (or Ms) admin. Proto t c 14:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 01:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acidy ass

Neologism and/or didcdef. Either suffices.Denni☯ 02:43, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jaxl | talk 02:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because I had Mexican fast food for dinner. - Lucky 6.9 03:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Cheese Sandwich 03:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf 03:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Fire Star 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
• The 'Acidy' user (no relation to an acid user) votes to Delete this extremely short and useless article. Acetic Acid 17:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Optichan 19:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sometimes i wonder who makes these up. feydey 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Don't wonder too loud Feydey, the answer might be some spagetti monster. <g> --Lomedae 00:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Make it go away!!! Ah! The burning!!!! I recommend Preparation H.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 01:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autotrash

Simple website listing, no other content. Cheese Sandwich 02:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Mysidia (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; non-notable website. Jaxl | talk 02:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jaxl. Alf 03:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, ad, no content. the wub "?/!" 11:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Autotrash this article. Advertising. Optichan 20:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, this is an ad. WP is not Google.--Rschen7754 22:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Asexual reproduction of plants. Clearly not deleting, nor retaining where it is. I'll do a fairly brute-force merge, as I'm no plantologist. -Splash 00:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suckering

Vandalism with jumble which almost makes sense but is wrong. SEWilco 02:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've re-written it, still not sure if it's not just dic-def tho'. Alf 03:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• It seems as if it should be in the Wiktionary. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
• Keep. 30,500 google hits for "Suckering plants". Cleanup however. Andrew pmk 04:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Asexual reproduction of plants--nixie 04:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: stub created by a nonsense-spewing vandal. If needed someone with content will create it. (SEWilco 05:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
• Merge per Nixie, although a redirect to Sucker would also work. Radiant_>|< 09:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• merge, a given how difficult to use the search engine is, the more redirects the better. Trollderella 16:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merege. More accurately, create redirect. Wikibofh 23:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, without the offer of a rewrite. -Splash 00:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Morales

non-notable, just barely missles qualificatosn for speedy delete. Delete. DES ^(talk) 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I dunno...looks pretty good now. The original entry was pretty sketchy, though. Keep and clean up. - Lucky 6.9 03:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. Found at [1]. Andrew pmk 04:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Close VfD: Not one of the established options, I know, but just close this vote and let this article get handled through copyvio. Wikibofh 23:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Get Back Band

I believe the operative word here is "band." No Googles other than the website. - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bandcruft. Andrew pmk 04:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I found a few Google hits that appear to be this band, but with no evidence that they satisfy WP:MUSIC, I vote Delete. --Metropolitan90 05:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per BD2412. Alf 10:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per above --Dysepsion 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naval Retreat

Military? Nope. Band. - Lucky 6.9 03:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bandcruft. Andrew pmk 04:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BDAbamson. Alf 10:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, bands. --Rschen7754 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 RadicalBender. android79 12:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William c barry

• Delete. Google turns up no confirmation that this has any basis in reality. —Charles O'Rourke 04:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• It's also a reposting of a speedy delete for the same reason. This is a childish attack page, nothing more. - Lucky 6.9 04:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lads Guide To Rio

• Delete. Non-notable web site, advertising. —Charles O'Rourke 04:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I had not finished it yet, the website was the reference, my source. I was just putting in all the links to the celebrities including Helo Pinheiro, Ronaldo, Noel From Oasis which I think would be worthy as cross reference. Helo Pinheiro isn't even here and she inspired the song The Girl From Ipanema, it was written about her.

• Delete --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}

• Delete - Peeper 09:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 09:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - since "not using an apostrophe" isn't a category, I'll go with nn. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Dottore So 16:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BeachSide HSC

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

An article with the name BeachSide on this same club recently was voted for deletion, with most entries citing non-notable as the reason: See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_18#BeachSide for previous VfD. --Daveb 04:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable --Daveb 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Proto t c 10:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Clear Speedy delete. Dottore So 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again and again and again...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digimaker CMS NetServer

• Delete. Non-notable company, advertising. —Charles O'Rourke 04:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spamvert. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteBadvertisment. Alf 10:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Dottore So 16:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Written like an ad, no NPOV--Rschen7754 22:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Folks

Author, one book published by a vanity press (Authorhouse - not the publisher listed in the article), delete --nixie 04:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability really. Can this be dispatched under A7?
• Delete as per nom Groeck 20:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perseus (Movie)

• Delete Varity High school Student Film Says in Article.Good writing though Shame. --Aranda56 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC).
• Delete - Not notable film - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- It's a good article but its subject is just nn. --22:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machete Productions

• Delete Varity---Aranda56 02:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same as above. --Rschen7754 22:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xiong mao kung fu

Nicely formatted article, but unfortunately it is only so much advertising for a newly created, non-notable martial art. 0 Google hits outside of WP, possible hoax. Fire Star 04:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be verified with external refs. I smell hoax too. MCB 07:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems pretty hoaxy. Optichan 19:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 20:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "The Xiong Mao Kung Fu organisation is, at present, in its infancy." That basically sums up my argument. --Rschen7754 22:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon_Harding

Delete Vanity Tori 05:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN-bio of someone's alias. Yeech. MCB 07:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MCB. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Curious, I should've thought that Meat Loaf, Batman and Billy the Kid were bios of aliases. And poor old Reg Dwight is just a redir. They're notable though, this one isn't. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 20:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Should the article for the real person go to VFD too? --Rschen7754

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ravene

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

the band does not meet any of the requirements at WP:MUSIC. the only attempt is: Their song "Song For You" made it into the national Top 10 of the National Youth Week Song Writing Competition. however, that is a "song writing competition" that they placed top 10 in...not a Top 100 list on a national music chart for actual performance of the song (i cannot find the contest anywhere, either). if evidence can be provided to lend notability to Ravene i will gladly support. otherwise, i must vote Delete. -- Bubbachuck 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: if this vfd passes, Jo Leutton, whose claim to fame is being a member of the band, should be deleted as well. -- Bubbachuck 05:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While they claim to have supported some well-known Australian acts, they don't Google all that well nor do they currently meet WP:music as far as I can tell. I might change my mind if verifiable evidence was shown of meeting WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 06:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Capitalistroadster said. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cap'. Alf 19:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really think not meeting WP:MUSIC for a band article should be speedy'able. Wikibofh 23:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logan Aubé

• Delete. This bizarre and most likely fictional biography is unsubstantiated by a Google search. —Charles O'Rourke 05:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Good job on keeping these ruffians out
• Delete. Idiocy. jni 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no comment needed. MCB 07:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Logan Aube, the 3D-film maker is more famous. Alf 13:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current content unverifiable, per Charles O'Rourke. search for -> "Logan Aubé" SARS <- had no hits. Might be salvageable if verifiable article re: 3D filmmaker is done -- WCFrancis 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• This is getting a speedy delete right now. This character was vandalizing the site last night something fierce with more or less this same garbage under the same name. - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter List of Eyeshield 21

Unencyclopedic, first person. Is a chapter title list copyrighted? Zoe 06:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Zoe. A chapter list or table of contents would be protected by the copyright on the complete work, like any other excerpt, but like any other short quote, might well be fair use. DES ^(talk) 06:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But it isn't really an excerpt, since it's the entire TOC. Zoe 06:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • But the ToC is an excerpt from the book or other work. The work should be taken as a whole for copyright purposes. It is the whole work that is copyrighted, normally. DES ^(talk) 06:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Is the chapter list of a book equivalent to the track listing of a musical recording (album)? (The latter are numerous in WP.) A case can be made for that. Reserve judgment on whether it's a suitable entry, but I don't think it's a copyvio. MCB 07:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, regardless of whether it's protected by copyright law. An article that only lists chapter titles and nothing else of a work is not useful. If someone wants to write summaries of all chapters, it can be included in the summary article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Dottore So 16:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per above - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Altitude at Taringa Apartments

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonnotable apartment building. Advertising. Zoe 06:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is not advertising. I live in them. Altitude is a apartment block for students to live in and it would be nice if there is a record of the people who have ran it, any notable events that take place there, and what the place is like, so that one day we can lookback and see the history of the building. Do you propose that we delete en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormond_College_(University_of_Melbourne), en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ's_College,_Cambridge etc.... I realize that Altitude is newish, as in the last couple of years, but it would still be nice to keep a history of the place on wikipedia. Well, I don't really know how this voting system works, but it would be nice to keep the Altitude at Taringa Apartments page. Just my two cents.

A place where students live is not notable. Where did I even suggest deleting the University pages? You're making strawman arguments. Please explain what makes this apartment building more important than any other apartment building in the world. Zoe 07:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstand the concept of Wikipedia. The building is not notable as you correctly state. So it should be deleted if this is one of the criteria for deletion. What about the fact that it is not advertising, does this have a higher weighting over "non notable"? For future reference, can you please direct me to where to look to understand if something fits the criteria to be added to Wikipedia. Many thanks for your kind help in getting me started in Wikipedia and telling me what is acceptable to add to it.

Thanks for being understanding. You can start with What Wikipedia is not. Zoe 07:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Assuming that these comments are from the article's author, it can be speedied as requested, otherwise a delete should not be hard. Brighterorange 11:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, tho' not advertising. I note however this is a better article than the Taringa State School, which it refers to as being on the site of. Alf 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Dottore So 16:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.

  Journalist ^C.Image:Smilie.gif ^{Holla @ me!}

• Delete, but I would encourage the editor to contribute to wikipedia - earlier, when I was new to wikipedia, few articles created by me were also deleted. So, cheers! --Bhadani 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apartment buildings are not notable. Sometimes, neighborhoods of such buildings may be. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Year Old Girls

Band vanity. Nintendocore? —Wahoofive (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nintendocore is a notable style of music and 14 Year Old Girls are a prominent representative of that style, therefore it would seem they pass WP:MUSIC criteria #6. Thatdog 06:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. artistdirect and allmusic both know about them, though artistdirect says "As of now the girls are working on music to put on an album to be recorded and released sometime this summer.", whereas allmusic claims they have two albums out. Zoe 06:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Passes WP:MUSIC. I've wikified and expanded the article slightly. Brighterorange 10:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roman Polanski No! I mean, keep. Proto t c 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Damn your sense of humour! Don't you know that this is VFD, home of all that is dark and evil in Wikipedia? Seriously though, that's hilarious and belongs in BJAODN. Oh, and keep.--Scimitar ^parley 14:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep meets the criteria to keep as it is verifiable and factual. Trollderella 16:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep never heard of them personally but they have a healthy web-presence HoratioVitero 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they've released label albums, and have a decent amount of google hits. --Fallout boy 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArtistShare

spamlink —Wahoofive (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (changed from Delete) on Wikibofh's argument. But the Badvertisment has to be written out. Alf 00:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Marketing. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Wikibofh. --GraemeL ^(talk) 09:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I've actually heard discussions of ArtistShare several times on NPR. Here is a link to one story. It included interviews from notable musicians who used this to finance albums and composition. This includes Grammy winner Maria Schneider (musician) who won the Grammy for an album produced via ArtistShare. From the website: It is the first recording in history to win a Grammy that is only distributed on the Internet! Article does need to be expanded though. Wikibofh 23:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:Cleaned the article up some. Wikibofh 00:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be notable form of music distribution via the Internet used by a Grammy Award winner and Trey Anastasio of Phish fame. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 K1Bond007. android79 12:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roberto Villarreal

I initially put this up to be speedied considering the amount of nonsense that was previously on the article, however, given that the article has been around for quite some time, I decided it's probably best that it go to VFD. No notability has ever been established in the article (see history). K1Bond007 06:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is an obvious candidate for speedy under A7, even if it managed to go unnoticed for a few months. Retagged. Thatdog 07:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enigmatical Fraternity of Van Diemen

Hoax. Zero Google hits. Only Yahoo hit is, strangely, a mirror of our own article on Secret society. I am going to be bold and delete the link from our own article. Zoe 07:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• delete at least one of: hoax, not notable, or not verifiable. Brighterorange 10:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reserved. Although written by IP, same IP did the links Zoe mentions, but on a different date. I have therefore greeted the user and suggested they comment here, particulary if they can reference their source document(s) : ) Alf 11:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Brighterorange. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Although lack of hits may be due to the fact that it is a secret!!!! (rolls eyes) ZacharyS 22:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Enigmatical Sorority of Van Diemen. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T.U.B.

Non-notable "secret society". BTW, I had to look up "hebdomadal" - it means "weekly". Zoe 07:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable boys club present at one school. --Daveb 07:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too secret. What's with all these secret societies? Proto t c 10:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment sssh!, someone's watching the Cat. at least this one references publications, albeit student ones. Alf 11:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A secret society that deserves to remain secret. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They have references, are at a major institution, and there is a precident for allowing "secret" societies entries on this site.Octagon 13:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unsurprisingly, user's first edit. Sdedeo 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see how that is a valid critique of my arguement. Lets be constructive, not petty. If articles entitled "buffy the vampire slayer and social issues" belong on wikipedia (arguable violation of wiki not being a forum for original ideas), then this certainly does. ok sorry, that was petty.Octagon 16:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Octagon. Welcome to wikipedia. If you are wondering why users whose first edit is a contribution to a VfD are considered suspicious, please read WP:SOCK. Sdedeo 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Sdedeo. If you are wondering why I'm trying to get you to give a valid reason for deleting this entry, please refer to the wiki guidelines on VfD. You see, this isn't a vote, so my alleged "sock-puppeting" and your de-facto sock-puppeting (reposting what another user has said without adding any insight of your own) don't matter at all; it's all what is brought to the table.Octagon 17:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi Octagon -- I draw your attention to the last two paragraphs of WP:SOCK. I've posted a message at your talk page with some suggestions on what to do if your article does not survive VfD. All the best, Sdedeo 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks Sdedeo. I draw your attention to the definition of the word "alleged." Basically, it means "described as but not proved," In other words, I did not admit to sock-puppeting, which would have been rediculous because I am quite a different person from whoever wrote this article. Give me a method, I will gladly prove it. My frustration is with your inability to cite where this entry is in violation of wiki's generally accepted guidelines, and your inisitence to vote against it because you consider it not "notable."Octagon 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important institution, has references, better article then most for secret societies. Henryshoots 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unsurprisingly, user's first edit. Sdedeo 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoe. Dottore So 16:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep meets the criteria to keep as it is verifiable and factual. Trollderella 16:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-documented and certainly notable and pertinent for the students at the school. Absolutely information that should be in a public forum. Samdupont 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. User's second edit. Reaching critical sockpuppet mass. Sdedeo 16:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As of yet non-notable secret club, existence dating back to 2000 at most. Sdedeo 16:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.GaelClichy Wikipedia should err on the side of expanding available knowledge, as opposed to restricting it for petty reasons.
  • Comment User's second edit. "Sockpuppet limit exceeded" Johntex 23:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• The Phillipian newspaper exists, I'm just not sure about those individual articles. By any chance, does the gentleman with the sockpuppets have a copy he can scan so that we can see it? That would go a long way to proving his argument. Until I see some kind of reference I can verify, I vote delete, especially since "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded". --Scimitar ^parley 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Articles are not online, but I have scans for any who want to see them. Henryshoots 19:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable "secret society". Suspicious sock-puppet-like activity on the VFD. Optichan 19:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. ] I just want to deal briefly with accusations of "sockpuppetry" (I just looked that phrase up and realized what you all were talking about. I am not a creation of the author of this article, nor have a posted on wikipedia before. sorry. I happen to know the author of this entry in the real world (god forbid), and was directed to this vote by him ("yo, I just wrote this wiki-entry, and people are trying to delete it"). I realize that there is no way to proves this, but I don't really care, you can choose to beleive me if you like. I am not deeply invested in wikipedia, nor am I well versed in meta-wiki terminology, but that does'nt necessarily invalidate my argument. I was pretty surprised to find that there were self-appointed wiki-censors, or self-styled guardians of the gates of knowledge who presume to know what others should and should not be able to read about on wikipedia. That's absurd. I understand that there has to be a certain level of quality control, but I think that once offensiveness, bias and errors have been eliminated from an entry, there's pretty much no reason to delete it. And I do not see anyone here arguing that this entry is plagued by any of those three things. Additionally, I doubt that this entry in particular is more frivolous than any number on wikipedia ("sock puppet," for example). I know that I learned some from reading it...nothing earth-shattering, but it was interesting enough for me to read the whole thing. Also, if, as opposed to asking people to vote (which is legit) the author was using sockpuppets, why would this vote be close at all?.[[User:GaelClichy|GaelClichy]

  Comment: People asked to vote by the author are called meat puppets- they're real people, but they have the same effect as sockpuppets. The question is really about whether or not this particular entry can be independently verified (please, someone, anyone, put those scans on their user page and let us see them), and whether it is important enough to cover- because although we aren't a paer encyclopedia, our server space is finite.--Scimitar ^parley 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Please see my user page for documents. Henryshoots 21:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not-notable. —Charles O'Rourke 23:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete Just a little too non-notable for me. Johntex 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Not verifiable. Also exceeds the "too many puppets" test. Wikibofh 23:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm reconsidering given that documentation was actually provided. Wikibofh 13:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to the user(s) supporting this page, being free of bias and errors are not the only qualifications an article must pass to be considered worthy of being on Wikipedia, it must also prove itself notable enough. I could write an article about the mailbox down my street and it would be verifiable, and free of bias/errors but it would be nowhere near worthy-enough to be on Wiki. This article is not notable enough, no one really knows about this except people who read The Phillipian which at most encompasses the Andover community. Secondly you criticize the VfD process for judging "what people should be allowed to see". Far from it, please feel free to host this information somewhere else on the internet and remember that anyone on Wikipedia (including yourself) is free to vote on VfD, however wiki also has certain standards to be met, notability being one. The reason we have people vote is because notability is highly subjective so the best way to determine what stays and what goes is the democratic process. And finally the reason you have been accused of sock puppetism is not because it was your first edit or because you supported the article but because of the manner in which you did both of those. I too made my de-lurking wiki "debut" the other day voting Keep on a VfD. I and my vote were accepted however because I made a case for why the article should stay. You on the other hand have really just argued that it is verifiable (not enough of a reason for the article to be kept) and have attacked not only other respected editors but the Wiki-process itself despite admitting you are new and have no real interest in Wikipedia. With that in mind please read our guidelines and join the community if youd like, but for now the article should be deleted. -ShadowStaller 02:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First off, I want to apologize for not having read entirety of the wiikiipedia guidlines. I am a huge fan of wikipedia and well I really wished my first post/edit wouldn't have to be of this nature. So to those of you who are experienced here, please dont judge me by the number of posts/edits but instead by what I say.

Moving on, I have placed the cited articles for those of you who have requested them as proof on the web. For reasons of bandwith I think we can all understand why it is not the full page of the paper but instead only the section for the article. That being said, I believe The Phillipian header is in most, and I am sure that the print date is on each of the scans. If you would like to download them you may do so here: http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/10-25-02-Phillipian-Article.pdf http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/Dec-1-2000.PDF http://dime32.dizinc.com/~tub/resources/Nov-10-2000.PDF

I hope this helps the people who feel that this post is entirley nonsense. It is merley documenting a trend at the oldest secondary school newspaper in the United States. Not to mention it offers insight other than that of the TUB society, it adds to the schools history, explaining how there used to be societies at Phillips Academy, which where banned in 1950. The topic on secret societies has at Phillips Academy has also been thought to be interesting enough to merit their own chapter in "Youth from Every Quarter: A Bicentennial History of Phillips Academy, Andover" by Frederick S. Allis (Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874511577/qid=1125030571/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-5077754-0876052?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 ) This all being said after reading everyones posts I am still confused as to what exactly constitutes a "notable" secret society. The dilema I am having is that since they are all secret none of us really know anything except for what they have led us to believe. For all we know, other secret societies that have been listed on wikipedia are just social clubs that like to call themselves secret societies. We really do not know anything else about them except for that they care to share with the pulblic eye. T.U.B. could be several decades old, or a what is left of a public society that went secret on the decision of Hedmaster John Kemper in 1950. Also, I have found this article to be more complete than some of the other societies pages that are on wikipedia. The point is we only know what they have let us find out.

I am an alumni from Phillips Academy and I can tell you that most students would be interested in the information on the T.U.B. society, hence the reason the highly awared newspaper chose to write about it. I don't see the harm in keeping it as it is merely collecting the information that students have come across over various years on this society. Whether you find it notable or not is up to you, but I believe that a society that supposedly exists in a school that has been around since 1778, has been written about over three times in the past five years by the nations oldest secondary school newspaper, and is against the institutions rules has more than enough reasons to be documented by the wikipedia. 200.106.189.82 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. The main problem as I see it is that TUB is a very young group (according to the Phillipean headline, "In Violation of School Policy, PA Group Forms Secret Society", 2000.) That students did something that broke a school's rules is not notable, even if the students attend a private school. In general, the criteria for secret societies should be a combination of longevity and notable members -- as of yet, the oldest members of this society have just graduated college. Sdedeo 19:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although this society does not have any notable alumni as of yet, societies at Andover have produced such notable characters as Henry Stimson and Preston, George and George W. Bush. Maybe not popular, but notable nonetheless. Although just any society at any school may not be deserving of wiki fame, a society in the tradition of long lasting secret brotherhoods (it was an AUV alumni that allegedly co-founded the Skull and Bones), and at a school that has matriculated Samuel Morse, Oliver Wendell Holmes, two presidents, two nephews of George Washington, and half of the Kennedy family arguably deserves a slice, albeit thin, of this presumably free exchange of information.Octagon 19:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sdedeo, I would like to point out that the first encounter with the society was in 2000, this by no means confirms that this was the date the society was started. For all we know it could date back a couple of decades. Also, keep in mind that this is under the heading of secret societies, organizations which usually keep their membership and most other information private. This means that even if it did have notable members, we would not know about them. Therefore your standard of "a combination of longevity and notable members" is completley based on something that we do not know. This means your standard requires a secret society to make public their membership and their date of founding, two things most societies will not do. The author obviously chose to write only on the fact that he could reference from the school newspaper because it is the nature of the wikipedia to contain information that can be confirmed. I can tell you for a fact that the author left out the rumors that exist about this society, such as the story that they have members in the administration, they run all the clubs on campus, have society cars and a society house near by in Lawrence, MA. Basically, the point of the article is to start building information on this society which is not just rumor, which last time I checked was perfectly all right in the wikipedia. I don't mean to be petty or insulting but it is begining to seem that you are trying to try and remove this article for personal reasons rather than to keep the wikipedia free of unworthy information, because clearly this article has been written for the purpose to collect fact checked information that would otherwise be lost to an ill managed archvie of The Phillipian.

• Keep. References have been supplied as requested. It has, at least caused two brouhahas now. Alf 08:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Samdupont & Alf. Also, note- to claim that non-notability to a select audience is a basis for deletion rather than non-notability to the audience as a whole is unfair to those who do in fact find an article about a secret society notable, i.e. just because you don't care doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Phillips Academy is a school with enrollment of over 1100 students, and hundreds of faculty and staff. The references have been verified. Wikipedia is now a credible reference that consolidates the available information about something that pertains to at least 1500 people who are affiliated with the school at this moment, not to mention the hundreds that have passed through at least since its the year that it is supposed to have been founded. Obviously this is something notable to them, as they had multiple articles in their school newspaper. Will we deny them? Perhaps these people will have information to add. Wikipedia employs the same philosophy under its policy on stubs; not much information now, but with potential. (Unsigned vote by PanteraCC09 (talk • contribs), first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B&C

Article fails to explain subject's notability. Zoe 07:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree. --Daveb 07:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's secret enough to not have any verifiable sources on the net about it. ([2]). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too secret. Proto t c 10:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep it secret. Alf 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 16:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless good, verifiable evidence presented prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Conscience

Secret societies are, by their nature, almost impossible to verify. The article fails to even prove the organization's existence. Zoe 07:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, too secret. Proto t c 10:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete highly connected secret society. Alf 11:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if "less is know about this secret society than any of the others on campus" it is by definition unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with a nod to Zoe for putting all this nonsense up for removal. Dottore So 16:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not even confirm existence. Non-notable. Optichan 20:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not yet verifiable. Anyway, how powerful could they be? Secret soc-aiiiiiieeeee argh no no help argh please no Sdedeo 22:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Mgm. (And later added to BJAODN). android79 12:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kylesaur

Oh come on its a friggin hoax. Well Anyways i think BJAODN before it gets deleted. Jobe6 07:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, I already deleted it. Didn't see you requested BJAODN. Of another admin who can see the deleted article agrees, contact me and I'd be happy to archive it there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Yeh, okay - another admin says BJAODN. Made polo shirts out of their skins indeed. Grutness...wha? 12:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move to userspace. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Neil Christenen

Textbook example of a vanity page. Userfy and Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 07:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I was going to userfy it, but since you put a Vfd header on it I'll vote userfy and delete. Zoe 07:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, his edit history shows the image and this page are his only 2 contributions and thus promoting himself is likely his aim. Only userfy to people who actually contribute something else too.
• Userfy and Delete, I have greeted the newcomer and pointed them here. sheesh, what's with the signature today Mgm? Alf 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (I'm one to talk - sig added.)
• Delete vanity. The picture is scary. Dottore So 16:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete per Zoe. Johntex 23:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and Delete as per Zoe. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Fieldbus, as this was merged pre-VfD. -Splash 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fieldbus_control_system

Article Name too specific, no one will look for this. Information in article has been moved to fieldbus as a general overview for these systems. Links here likewise redirected BjKa 07:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• comment you can perform the merge and redirect yourself without posting to VfD, which would be more expedient. Brighterorange 10:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not my field, would anyone search on that title?, what the heck, Redirect.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zambian Boys

Looks like band vanity. Gets 123 Google hits, all of which are probably unrelated ('Zambian boys'). The article's creator has also been spamming other articles with links to this one, such as Bisexuality. - ulayiti (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The band is very popular in Zambia and some surrounding countries. --213.138.128.13 08:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. The singer of the Zambian black metal band "Zambian boys" is a bisexual. --213.138.128.13 08:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear then, this is the author. - ulayiti (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I doubt anything within Zambia has a big internet presence so I'm not really surprised this is hard to check. Why not simply ask for evidence that the band clears WP:MUSIC. If the anon can't provide it, we can still delete it later. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, 'music in zambia' (without quotes) gets over two million Google hits, so you'd expect at least a few of them to mention something about this band if it's 'very popular'. I strongly suspect it's a hoax, since it doesn't get any Google hits (except that there's apparently a 'Zambian Boys Choir' in Missouri), it's been written by an anon user who specialises in hoaxes (see Medieval black metal and Jorma Himokas, for example), and the names of the purported band members are suspiciously close to Finnish words (eg 'Oiva Pera' means 'nice ass'). - ulayiti (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. If we can't verify it, we can't keep it.--Scimitar ^parley 14:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• vote changed to delete after evidence presented by Ulayiti. Trollderella 21:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Hoax article by notorious troll. Sdedeo 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless verified. Another poster I might be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to, since it might be hard to google and yet a valid article, but an anonymous poster who has a block log and a change to Finnish language of "The Finnish language sounds damn stupid." hasn't earned that trust.--Prosfilaes 17:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No evidence that any such band exists, created by a user with a long history of trolling and creation of hoax articles. I have to question the motives of anybody who would vote keep on this article. Zoe 20:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax by a troll. --TheMidnighters 21:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax. --Etacar11 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I'm with Zoe: this is not a probable hoax, this is a certain hoax per the research of Ulayiti and should removed forthwith. Dottore So 17:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, I'm just being cowardly. ;) --Etacar11 17:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bad Brucie

Delete. Hoax, fake, untrue, nonsense. Nothing in Google on this. (The "BBB" patch is actually the logo of the Better Business Bureau.) MCB 08:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete as a hoax, but when did the better business bureau get a team of military snipers? Brighterorange 10:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have welcomed the new user and pointed them here. Alf 11:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bruce Forsyth :) (or delete) the wub "?/!" 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedyable as patent nonsense. Bearcat 05:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval black metal

More band vanity from the user who brought us Zambian Boys. - ulayiti (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 09:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Medieval black metal is the most famous Portuguese (or possibly Finnish) black metal band. --213.138.128.13 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Given that Portugal does not even remotely resemble Finland (and isn't anywhere near there either), delete as nonsensical. Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merda do touro. --Scimitar ^parley 15:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. I like the idea of Luso-Finnish (or it is Finno-Luso) metal, though. Dottore So 16:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. --Prosfilaes 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a black metal band that started in the late sixties? Laughable hoax. --Etacar11 00:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jorma Himokas

More band vanity from the user who brought us Zambian Boys. - ulayiti (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete as bandity/hoax (0 googles). Brighterorange 10:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete; band questionably notable, the lead singer even less. As well as one piece in a collection of articles that are probably completely nonsense.--Prosfilaes 18:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Rschen7754 23:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Konstaapeli Himokas

More band vanity from the user who brought us Zambian Boys. - ulayiti (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete as bandity/hoax (0 googles) Brighterorange 11:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as the album of a band that is questionably notable on its own, and probably complete nonsense.--Prosfilaes 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity --Rschen7754 23:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riches Will Rust

Non-notable online community? Please vote. Ajshm 08:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete alexa rank 2.5million (new URL not even ranked); not notable Brighterorange 11:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly non-notable. Don't forget about the image (Image:Rwr.png) which will be orphaned and misses copyright info. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. android79 12:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and the page says that the site has been mostly shut down?--Rschen7754 23:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Juan R. Perales

Non-notable, vanity page. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 09:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a interesting article about an spanish celebrity. It's horrible this anglosaxon political of deletion.

Comment. In case that is directed at me: I am neither anglo nor saxon. And Wikipedia welcomes articles about notable people from all over the world. --DrTorstenHenning 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Great big Anglo-Saxon delete for this vanity page about a nn person. Sadly can't speedy, as contains assertions of notability, albeit made-up ones. Proto t c 10:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a search on Spanish Google for his name yields a massive 2 hits. Also, I doubt a town of 1000 towers each 1000 meter high would escape my attention if it existed. As far as I know, such a town does not exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

- Answer : It's a great project about a new kind of city. About the spanish Google, maybe da ya believe that google is the holy bible?

- Juan R. Perales says to the great-removers: " I've decided to remove this page, I think you are not ready for real information, you all only want to satisfy your ego's. You can be now happiness, but it's a pity you lack of sense of humour and your arrogance. I'll add this information in other more democratic enciclopedia.

Good Bye "

Juan, we are so democratic that we want to give more people the chance to vote. And therefore we will keep reverting any blanking of the page until this vote is properly concluded. --DrTorstenHenning 13:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• This "yello nerd" says Delete. Arrogant vanity. android79 12:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until "They are the most spanish freakies you've ever seen" are grounds for notability (from article talk page). Alf 13:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Google doesn't mention this city of 1000 towers, 1km high, so I thought I'd check the Bible since that's suggested as a source. And do you know, that doesn't mention it either? Delete.

Forgot to sign. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN, per The wub Tonywalton  | Talk 15:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN. the wub "?/!" 15:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE no sólo qué no es una persona notable, es un loco. Dottore So 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• On behalf of the "CLEANUP-FORCE", this great-remover says Delete. Finally, I can now be happiness...Karmafist 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If this does go to BJAODN, please can it go with the "yello nerd" attack included, now deleted by Zoe? I don't want to start a revert war, but without that it loses some piquancy. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Yeah, it's a lot funnier with that included. (Plus my vote doesn't make sense without it...) Don't forget the talk page, either. android79 21:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not ready for real information. Sdedeo 21:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Should be speedied as hoax. Johntex 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified vanity. --Etacar11 00:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a photo of the thousand towers. I'd like to have the money it would cost to create it. I'd like to vote Delete as unverifiable. One out of three is probably all I'll get. --WCFrancis 01:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, non-notable, etc. maybe even vanity. --23:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Juan R. perales says to everyone : A sign of that's a so good article it's the controversy a interesting discussion about it. I think most of the peploe who's written here really they've enjoyed the article and the interesting discussion and it's the acid test of that type articles about curious and unclassifiable people can enrich this great enciclopaedia.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We can only report information that's available elsewhere. Until someone can prove this project is in the planning or actually exists we can't accept an article about it. Likewise, with Juan himself: we need sources that say he's an artist. And 1000 meter towers would reach 1km into the sky. To my knowledge it's impossible to build that high. Again we need sources to back up your claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I think you'll find that "controversy" implies "contra", Juan. I don't see anybody except you putting forward any viewpoint opposite to "delete". Try [3]] Tonywalton  | Talk 12:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn (a vandalized article was mistakenly tagged). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aloysia Weber

Probably non-notable. Hard to tell from the messy article. KeithD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep - did you check the edit history, Keith? The article was a perfectly good stub before anon vandalism. I will revert but keep the VfD tag. Perhaps you could withdraw the nomination so we can close the VfD. Proto t c 10:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Nomination withdrawn. I didn't check the edit history. Sorry. I'll be more careful in future. KeithD (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, as follows: the nomination was withdrawn, Alpha phi delta is now a redirect to Alpha Phi Delta, and the contents of the previously independent articles have been merged, albeit sloppily, and a {{cleanup}} tag added to the mess. Tomer ^TALK 06:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Phi Delta

Delete Article has a merge tag on it, with Alpha phi delta, but the information is already included in the latter. KeithD (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Then it should have just been a redirect - no need to clutter VfD with it. Speedy redirect please. Proto t c 10:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Sorry, you're right again. My mind's all over the place. KeithD (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For proper capitalization, Alpha phi delta should redirect to Alpha Phi Delta. Zoe 20:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I came across this from the merge category - I think this is actually the correct capitalization, unless there is something I don't understand about American fraternities. No, scratch that, there's virtually nothing about american fraternities that I understand. But, I think that Alpha phi delta should redirect to Alpha Phi Delta. The former has much more content - would it be easier to delete Alpha Phi Delta to allow a move of Alpha phi delta, or is a cut and paste move ok? Trollderella 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people known as war heroes

This list is not and has no potential to become encyclopedic. The concept of a "war hero" is inherently POV and, more often than not, dependent on specific cultural context. As such, this page is liable to become the breeding ground for edit wars. The page, at present, lists a somewhat random collection of soldiers without any apparent rhyme or reason. The page has lasted for at least eighteen months without the development or use of inclusion criteria.

I would argue that this is so because there is no possibility of developing a satsifactory system that would be both neutral and useful. For most people heroism is not simply the effective discharging of one's duty. It implies something special, something particularly daring. Yet the phrase "war hero" seems to generally connote any effective military leader. On that grounds, this list might contain thousands upon thousands of generals and admirals, with endless debates over whether each one is "heroic" or "considered heroic." Therein lies the other problem. Someone who is heroic for one group of people is anathema to another. The British might still consider Lord Kitchener a war hero, but to many people of Afrikaner descent he's a war criminal. Which is he? Depends on who you talk to.

Brings me to my last point. This list, as it stands, is original research. It's a compilation based on subjective criteria and value judgements, which cannot be independently verified. We aren't here to judge who's a hero and who's not. Now, the link at the bottom to recipients of the Victoria Cross–that's useful. That's a list of people that the British consider heroic. This is a list of people that members of the Wikipedia community consider heroic. Mackensen (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - one man's terroist is another's war hero, and vice versa. I can foresee far too many hideous edit wars popping up over this, so just nip it in the bud. Too PoV and trollbaity. Proto t c 11:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I reworked the intro paragraph for NPOV and it seems ok now --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I was thinking it could work if you requried like 5 media sources for each entry.... but I do agree it might not be worth it on second thought --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this list is a dead loss. It can never be sufficiently comprehensive as to be fair. I agree that it is not and can never be encyclopaedic. Any value it has is easily outweighted by the counterproductive controversy and likely offence that it will cause. Keeping it will only result in further argument over who should be known as 'edit war heroes'. Peeper 11:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherent POV. Radiant_>|< 11:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pperos. Meelar (talk) 14:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but maybe not in this form, I was surprised by the 'worst movies ever' page, and how good that article was, this seems to be the same issue. Trollderella 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its would be good for biographical reasons, true that not all may view certain people as "heros". Agree with Trollderella maybe different form Tucats 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me suggest to the above two voters that what they really want is an article entitled "War hero," which currently redirects to this list. At war hero there could be a discussion of what a war hero is, without attempting to create a list. This way, someone can read the discussed criteria and decide for themselves, who they think is a war hero. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with the above two votes. This can never be comprehensive or even consistent and therefore is inherently unencyclopedic. There is no standard for asserting someone is a war hero so who judges whom to include. Most of the soldiers who have died in Iraq are being called 'heroes'. Four Canadian soldiers who died in a friendly-fire accident in Afghanistan are referred to as heroes. Slaughtered Belgian Peacekeepers in Rwanda are considered Belgian heroes. None of these should really make this list - but whose call is that going to be? I say this should be tossed as a flawed enterprise. If it stays it should be renamed to List of people known as war heroes that we can think of with more to be added as they occur to us. Dottore So 16:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least retitled to "people declared by the media to be war heros". Sdedeo 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is there any notable soldier that's not being called a war-hero in the media? It's too broad, it's too vague, it's too POV.--Prosfilaes 17:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This list will always be POV and controversial. Also a war hero is a subjective definition. Usually war heroes are defined by the winning side of a war/conflict while the "heroes" of the losing side are usually eliminated from history.--Joelito 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just because it will be difficult to reach an impartial middle ground on this issue doesn't meen that we should ignore it. True, the line between hero and terrorist is similar to the line between rebel and revoltionary, like I said, difficult, not impossible... HoratioVitero 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further note that if you had taken the tiem to look at my user page you would see that I prefer to include things rather than delete them, it would therefore make sense that I refrain from raping other peopel's entries with out significant motivation HoratioVitero 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's also the problem of original research. As it stands, this "article" is completely and totally unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. Zoe 20:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV and potentially unmanagably large. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherent POV. --TheMidnighters 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Every war's got two sides, and one side's hero is the other side's villain. Agree with the idea of a generic War hero article per Mackensen above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Marskell 09:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (75% support). Radiant_>|< 11:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis at Crusaders Citadel

Not notable. --fvw* 03:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Villains and Vigilantes as a section. That will improve the V&V article. This page would then be a redirect. I would do it now, but that seems to be a violation of the VfD process. --Mddake 03:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Villains and Vigilantes. Now that takes me back. I concur with the idea to use this to fill out the V&V page, but maybe edit it down a bit? It's a bit florid now. Merge or Weak Keep. Either way. --DavidConrad 04:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and it will still bore me). Alf 14:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this on August 25 because I think it could use more discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per Mddake -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatal Frame: The Movie

Well, I actually didn't nominate this, just finishing a nomination. But I can see the reasoning behind it: a review, POV and gossip, all wrapped up in one unwikified article. With IMDb marking the status of the movie as "Unknown," I don't think a rewrite can lift this above speculation. CanadianCaesar 10:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any verifiable information (if there is any) about a Fatal Frame movie onto Fatal Frame, and leave a redirect. Proto t c 11:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting on Aug 25. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete at least until it really looks like it will take off into a real movie --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pure speculation. All the verifiable stuff is already in Fatal Frame. After deletion, it can be recreated as a redirect to the game article which has a section on this. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete first person speculation. --Etacar11 00:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original work - Tεxτurε 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Note that I ignored "votes" which I interpreted to be either sarcastic, joking or, in one case, made by a suspected troll.

Two serious people explicitly asked for a "delete then redirect". The target is very similar to the version being nominated, convincing me that there was at least some content reuse. If so, we cannot delete this version without violating the attribution history requirements of GFDL. Reviewing the history of this version, I find nothing so objectionable that we must take all the extra steps to purge the history. I am going to exercise my discretion and redirect to Sock Shop. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockshop

100% pure commercial advertising for a shop selling socks. Calton | Talk 11:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete at least a partial copyvio of http://www.sockshop.co.uk/aboutus --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even an entertaining advert...although the pictures are verging on the hilarious. Peeper 11:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOCK :) Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Blatant advertising. kvidell 11:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advert. Let's not worry about copyright violations, that only prolongs its existence. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote.
• Comment. There must be a well stocked branch near Mr Parker's Law Firm practise. Seriously though, this is an established retailer with near nationwide coverage in the UK, admittedly not as famous as Boots the Chemist or Marks & Spencer, and at present it does read as Badvetising. Alf 13:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've noticed there is a duplicate page at Sock Shop. Alf 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've greeted and suggested the editor make comments here. Alf 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep but cleanup and de-copyvio it. Does seem like a fairly large retail chain in operation more than 20 years. We have plenty of retail store articles... Category:Retail corporation stubs lists about 400 of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep please the wp:sock does not really apply here this time if you ask me this is a notbale chain as starblind just said Yuckfoo 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a well know chain in the UK. Trollderella 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup to remove ad-like copy and copyvio. Verifiable. Funny, though, I don't see any possible sockpuppet votes. *grin* -- WCFrancis 20:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't see anything notable about this particular sock company. They make socks. —Charles O'Rourke 23:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that thay actually make the socks themselves, they are a retailer, they probably get puppets to make the socks for them. Alf 09:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Sock Shop which I've edited to wikiformatting standards and which appears to be the proper spelling of the name. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as per Mgm. Alf 09:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2. Or to Sock Shop. Whichever. Proto t c 09:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect I posted this section, whilst I can see your concerns about advertising, I was trying to make sure no products were mentioned and it was factual with no offers or ads. Take for example entry - iRobot - this shows the key two products Roomba and Packbot (a great entry), but has been kept, there are more examples. There are no issues of copywrite I can confirm. Thanks though for reformatting the Sock Shop entry. Toomuchfranking 10:38, 26 August 2005
• Redirect. Although I would like to see some further work on the article. Alf 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (I had to change this vote as I intially thought I was on Sock Shop, redirect this to there. Alf 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC))
• Keep as per WP:SOCK. Do not redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, nomination withdrawn -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Xavier Pick"

Probably a vanity article. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a misnamed requested article. I withdraw my delete vote. — JIP | Talk 13:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep - I initially put the vfd tag on this page but after checking on Google, found relevant google links referring to this guy as a British artist. Also after moving it to the location without the quotation marks and pressing "What Links Here" I discovered that it's actually a requested article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Francs. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to right name space. Alf 13:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and renamed. Capitalistroadster 14:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10th floor test

Delete. Zero relevant google hits (highly unlikely for a true IT-related term). Ergo, neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete It is exactly because of the zero relevant google hits that I am creating this page.

  I first heard it during a talk at the UKUUG Linux Technical Conference in Swansea by Thomas Lange. I contacted Thomas to ask wether it was his idea. Here's his feedback

  > Hi Thomas,

  > I've been googling etc but can't find anythin.

  > Who actually coined the term "the 10th floor test" ?

  I know it from Steve Traugott, www.infrastructures.org how did some talks on this topic.

  The fact that it isn't a Higly common IT-related term YET should not be a reason for deletion.

  --Kris.Buytaert Kris.Buytaert 2005-08-25 11:57:20 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 17:52:57, 2005-08-25 (UTC))

  • Kris, Wikipedia is not a primary source. We only report known and documented information and everything needs to be referenced or at least be possible to verify someohow. Since this term is not yet in common usage, there's no reliable third party resources on the subject. - 131.211.210.10 13:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an almost exact analogue of the Stephen Hawking example in Wikipedia:verifiability. Readers cannot verify something that is only mentioned in an unpublished electronic mail message whose very existence itself they only have a complete stranger's word for. If the conference has no record of proceedings that records the explanation of this concept, then it is unverifiable and does not belong here. Uncle G 17:52:57, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
• Delete The whole point of notability is that it excludes things that haven't happened yet. If someone created a 'computing infrastructure' article or even a Steve Traugott article, this might be merged. NN on its own though. Dlyons493 12:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, any IT-related term that fails to return Google results is by definition not notable. - 131.211.210.10 13:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ( Forgot to log in. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Tonywalton  | Talk 13:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Andy Janata 00:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anyone could as well introduce 11th floor test, 12th floor test,... Misza13 19:15:33, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The hutton enquiry

nn band. Punkmorten 11:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• NN - "Hutton Enquiry"+Guildford yields 63 google hits, all but two of them connected with the official government inquiry (the other two were for the band). Delete the content and use the page as a redirect to Hutton Inquiry. A shame - titles like "Penguin Frog March" deserve to be noted somewhere. Grutness...wha? 12:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - as per Grutness --Doc (?) 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Grutness. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed - Delete and redirect. Although I might buy their second album just to hear 'The Haiku Dungeon' for myself. Peeper 13:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but agree those song titles are great. I particularly like "all bran gangster". the wub "?/!" 15:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Grutness. --TheMidnighters 22:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Etacar11 00:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'A best of album is already in the works' - blimey. Delete. Proto t c 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Leutton

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

nn musician for Ravene, who is up for VfD. Producing career does not make him notable. Punkmorten 12:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable as yet musician. Capitalistroadster 15:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN group. NN musician in that group. Wikibofh 23:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nodezilla

Misleading about being open source; innovative - not established; not linked from elsewhere Duncan Cragg 12:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The network layer is the C++ bit that is not open sourced. I have been in contact with the author of Nodezilla, who seems genuine enough, and tells me that this is, indeed, a one-man, non-commercial effort and that he intends to open the network code once it stabilises. He says he didn't put the Wikipedia entry in himself.
However, the reasons for deletion still stand as listed above. Duncan Cragg (edited DuncanCragg 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

---

• Delete. Not (yet) notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a software catalog CDC (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I rarely (ever?) vote to remove something but I am seriously disturbed about this article since after going to the webpage listed there are inconsistencies that GraemeL has suggested above:

• The download area does not have a link to the code even though the article says it's 'GPL' [4]
• The 'sourceforge' link is to a project called Evl (but says Nodezilla as a title).
• The version of Nodezilla is 0.41 for download, but Evl is 0.6.0-23052005, are they the same or are they not?

I don't think it should be deleted *if* it is accurate as there is room enough on Wikipedia for this project to have an article. --ShaunMacPherson 08:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think 'room enough' is a reason to keep it, according to Wikipedia guidelines! DuncanCragg 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-ish Having said that, I am swayed by the 'keep' comment below and by my inability to find 'non notability' in the Wikipedia guidelines for non-inclusion!! DuncanCragg 08:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I created this article because I was interested in Nodezilla, and the Wikipedia is a great place to collect NPOV information. Since I added a short stub other have come and put more into the article. If the article is not accurate (it's proprietary rather than open-source) we can fix that. I think they deserve an article because they claim to offer anonymous file-sharing. Personally I believe their method is flawed, but we can write about that. I also do not see a problem with Wikipedia containing articles about many pieces of software of varying popularity. It has been cited before, and I shall cite it again Wiki is not paper.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Golbez 18:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harun Najafizada

nn and Unverifiable-only Googles originate from wiki. Dlyons493 12:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. Doesn't make sufficient claim to notability. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf 13:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy under A7, no assertion of notability. - ulayiti (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classroom greeting

I'd cite it as a dictionary definition if it wasn't so patently useless. Al 12:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, in my books, this is a self-referential dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mgm. Alf 13:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Note also that the author has wikified the term on Happy Birthday to You, so this will become a redlink if this is deleted. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless somebody can show some sort of of important cultural role, tradition, or history behind classroom greetings that's worthy of an expanded article; as it now stands, it would fit better in Wiktionary if it had any reason to exist at all. *Dan* 12:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linapore

Non-existant. Google returns zero results. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax which the creator has cunningly attempted to disguise by omitting any trace of humour. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete silly hoax/micronation whose "official site" is hosted on Geocities. No Google hits at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The name Linapore was derived from the founder Royal Andrew Lin in the 1900s.

• Delete. Hoax. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew Lin. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly delete. It's not even hilarious. Peeper 16:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete self confessed hoax --TimPope 07:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax and nonsense. *drew 11:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Cushing

please remove this page. I am Tim Cushing and none of the information on this page is even remotely true. Thank you.
(Comment by Anon User:152.160.56.93)

• Could you provide someone here at Wikipedia with proof, you are Tim Cushing? Be advised, there's more people with the same name in the world, so it may be about a namesake. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Edit If this is the same Tim Cushing as referenced to in the article (see Mgm's comment), then perhaps the VfD-requester would be so kind to indicate which part of the article is incorrect, or perhaps edit it himself considering he's probably an authority on the topic of his own life. Kander 13:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there seem to be no Google hits on Tim Cushing and terms like hair, stylist, hairsylist and so on (except this article and its mirrors). I suggest this may be a hoax Tonywalton  | Talk 13:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete article looks like a hoax to me, regardless of the nominator's association with it. Brighterorange 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only google hits for a notable hairstylist are Wikipedia mirrors. Somehow, I suspect someone who's cultural impact can be compared to Elvis and the Rollig Stones wuld have more. --Scimitar ^parley 15:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax CDC (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 18:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a possible hoax if this cannot be referenced. I tagged this as {{unreferenced}} back in June and here we are now. Hall Monitor 19:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Verification aside, this hair stylist to the stars is not notable. Thatdog 20:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I know this person and this is an elaborate hoax. Please remove. 20:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Property master

Computer translation. This is a worthy subject of an article, but better to start over (also possible copyvio)Zeimusu | Talk page 13:47, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

• Keep and re-write The English is terrible, but it's a noble effort and a solid topic. This content could be cleaned up and enhanced into a good article. --Outlander 13:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and re-write agree with Outlanderssc. Trollderella 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and re-write. I'd have a shot at translation, but it would be easier to start off with the original... Tonywalton  | Talk
• Keep I re-wrote it, it's a little stubbish but I kept what I could from the original but it could obvouisly use more. Rx StrangeLove 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Kudos, nice job - --Outlander 15:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep RX Strangelove's rewrite.Capitalistroadster 23:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expletus

Blatant advertising --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Expletus: Delete-us!. Spam. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 100% COPYVIO too Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for above reasons. --Bhadani 15:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity Roodog2k 19:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fabulous Five

Apparently a hoax--23 hits for "Fabulous Five" +Heston, 1400 (none relevant) for "Fabulous Five" +actor. Unless this fictional crimefighting team is proven to be real, delete. Meelar (talk) 13:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. Unless someone is trying to get them to work together on a new movie project. David | Talk 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Agamemnon2 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have greeted the intial editor and encouraged them to comment here :) Alf 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad hoax. If it was a movie, it should be made clear it's fictional and that the actors are playing characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Someone's trying too hard to get something into BJAODN. Proto t c 09:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social Networking System

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's barely even a neologism - why have an entry under this name, and then only explain that the initials that got you there might stand for something else? Weird...slightly sinister if you ask me. Peeper 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Surprisingly Neologistical Syntax. Alf 17:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strangely Non-notable Silliness. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, smurf noodle singapore. Proto t c 14:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on Proto, you're just not trying hard enough.Alf 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about drinking

This is absolutely pointless. If it really must exist, it should be a category. Thelb4 14:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists of songs#Various Miscellaneous Topics has lists of songs about gangs, laziness and masturbation, to name but three, so why not (given some cleanup, like removing the potential copyvio lyrics)? Tonywalton  | Talk 15:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Having only the first line or two, as is currently the case for this article, would come under fair use I think. Caerwine 15:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep. Populous, verifiable, and useful list. Brighterorange 15:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and convert into a category. Pointless indeed! Peeper 16:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - it can't usefully be turned into a category, because most of these songs don't have their own pages. Brighterorange 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously, factual and verifiable. Trollderella 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - If we delete this we would have to look into deleting the other lists of songs as well. Anybody in for that long, protracted fight? By the time you even have this list deleted, there'll probably be two more lists of songs created. --Measure 16:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment "Ego sum abbas" from Orff's Carmina Burana (second section) isn't there, nor are ANY of Henry Purcell's drinking songs - I might be some time, Scott! User "Oates" Alf. 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC
• keep please lists can be better than categories some times Yuckfoo 19:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I'm sober right at the moment. -- WCFrancis 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Brightorange and Yuckfoo. You can't make a category about songs which don't have articles, but a lot of them are notable and should have an article. Hence a list is currently the best option. Besides, if people look for a list of articles, they go to the main article space with our search, so that's where you should find it, not the category name space. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. I don't personally believe that lists like this are encyclopedic, but we've got dozens of them so there is a precedent to keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable theme in the music world. CanadianCaesar 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Much better than having hundreds of near-pointless drinking-song articles in a category. —Charles O'Rourke 23:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list —Wahoofive (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable type of song. Lists can be annotated while categories cannot. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In heaven there is no beer; that's why we drink it here; and when we're all gone from here, our friends will be drinking all the beer. Caerwine 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP some of the greatest country music songs are drinkin' songs! – Alakey2010 05:07 p.m., 03 October 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 22:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Peitz

Nnb, compare with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Free Lunch Design. - Fredrik | talk 15:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn vanity. What about Icy Tower? What is WP policy on videogames? Sdedeo 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. / Alarm 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Web Rage

• Neologism rage. Lomn smash! Delete Merge per Tony. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:15:39, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

I was skeptical until I read One frustrated IT manager admitted to smashing up his £2,500 laptop after a web page failed to recognise his personal details after six attempts. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:42:53, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

• delete as neologism. Brighterorange 15:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as neologism. Extreme Unction 15:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Road rage. If this is a neologism it's been around for at least two three years, per [5] Tonywalton  | Talk 15:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. What year is it now? Tonywalton  | Talk

• Merge as per Tony, but rephrase to be a bit more encyclopedic, and of course lose the Canada joke (BJAODN if you wish). --IByte 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Road Rage Road rage could be expanded with "terms derived from" - I've also heard "Trolley Rage" quite widely used (people losing it in supermarkets, usually for minor reasons) for instance. When I have the time... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some dab headers on Road Rage and Road rage would be good too. I know, I know, {{sofixit}} Tonywalton  | Talk

• Delete, or include Dripping Tap Rage, Tiny Screwdriver Rage, Self-promoting Neologism Rage, etc. etc. Sdedeo 20:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've heard 'Trolley Rage', too. And let us not forget 'Air Rage' - didn't one of the guys from REM have an issue with this? (Peter Buck?) But they're all offshoots of road rage, and a section there titled "Terms derived from 'road rage'" would cover these nicely. Merge per Tony, leave a redirect. Proto t c 09:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any value in keeping this or merging with another article. --NormanEinstein 12:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete!! Or my Rage Rage will go critical mass and scatter neologistic fallout over all of Wikipedia!!! ;) Cheers, Madmagic 21:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chimfunshi

Completing VfD nomination by The Fäcist Chicken who seems to have forgotten the vfd2 template Tonywalton  | Talk 18:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The link doesn't work and what is featured in the article seems fake so I think that it should be deleted. The Fäcist Chicken 15:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The link not working was a very minor factor, and was a simple typo, which has now been corrected. Upon inspecting the page linked you will find it is definetly not fake. Although this article is definetly a stub, it justs needs more expansion, not deletion. -- Owen

Keep. Seems notable and verifiable. Perhaps the title could be expanded to "Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage" though. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Tidied up a bit, my searches confirm contents as stated. Alf 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Leaning toward delete. If this one stays, I'm adding The Chimp Farm in Florida for good measure. -PlainSight 04:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. My personal opinion is that this was an attempt to use prose when a map would have conveyed the same information better. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladner Trunk Road

While I have some sympathy for nearby 56th Street, which after all is the only access road to the exclave of Point Roberts, Ladner Trunk Road is nothing but a road described in exacting detail. Stay tuned for the entry on the parking meter in front of Pilatus' house! Pilatus 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. But it will live on in my memory as possibly the most tedious wikipedia entry I have ever read... Peeper 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yee gads and all that is holy that is tedious. Delete, now, please! -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Major attractions include a McDonald's! Makes me want to put this road on my itinerary next time I'm in Canada... well, not really. Delete in barely held anticipation of Pilatus' parking meter. -Satori ^(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete excruciating minutiae --TimPope 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I wanted to vote delete, but I have to vote neutral because I am in awe of the detail in this article- someone has way too much time on their hands. (Oh, and everyone else has voted to delete anyway, so it doesn't really matter how I vote).--Scimitar ^parley 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• oh, it always matters how you vote... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I say keep, it is clearly important to the community which it serves... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete impressive detail, but unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep to neutral This article would not be called into question if it were about Broadway in NYC Roodog2k 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep it looks factual and verifiable to me. Trollderella 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, factual and verifiable is not notable. Zoe 20:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bu factuality and verifiability are deletion criteria, while notability is not. Trollderella 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and never has been true. This contention is only repeatedly issued by the estreme inclusionists who think that everything that is or has ever existed in the world should have an article, but it is not policy. Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

not notable by whos definition?HoratioVitero 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What makes this road any more notable than any other road in the world? Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not relevant to deletion debates, it is not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeating this mantra does not make it true. Zoe 21:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you put it that way, because, in fact, as you must clearly know, no matter how many times you repeat it, there is nothing in the deletion guidelines about notability. You know that there isn't. I'm not interested in arguing about this with you, I suggest we drop it an go and write articles. Trollderella 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actual articles, though, not pointless trivia. Something considered "enyclopedic" is pretty much a priori notable. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or if that fails merge in to Ladner. Roads are best described in images as they convey the geographical location much better than any writing ever could. Having a McDonald's on this stretch of road is not worthy of note and it could hardly be called an attraction. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Why not suggest a WikiAtlas project to migrte all this stuff to? BTW, I've noticed roadcruft is extremely US, Canadian and Uk centric. I've yet to encounter an article about a random road from the Netherlands, which leads me to believe these articles are only relevant for the people who have some connection to the location in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability as a critereon for inclusion is an inference from the section of WP:NOT that states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." It is perfectly legitimate and standard operating procedure to vote based on a subject's notability or lack thereof. Zoe is absolutely correct. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article on Pilatus' parking meter would be more interesting. (At least it's a cool-looking parking meter.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable road. Sliggy 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, minor non-notable road. Need to expand to road deletion outside the UK. - Hahnchen 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't even have a Tim Horton's, so I can't see how could be in any way notable. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn roadcruft. --Etacar11 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete, for the love of all that is holy. Proto t c 09:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Road is only locally significant. I suspect, given the preponderance of road articles of late, that it might be worth having a policy discussion to hammer out clear guidelines as to the dividing line between notable roads and non-notable ones. (One user actually added a redlink to "Lorraine Drive" in Toronto, a monumentally non-notable residential street, to the dab page at Lorraine recently, and I shudder to think of what would happen if Wikipedia had an article on every single street in the world.) Bearcat 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably something truely dreadful like, erm, well, people looking for information on streets could find it. No, that's not right, sea levels would rise, anarchy would break out! ;) Trollderella 17:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody needs information on every last dinky little three-house residential laneway in the world to be present on Wikipedia. Bearcat 18:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it's just an insignificant street.Dottore So 17:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too generic, no distinguishing features. Mindmatrix 22:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion. Not sure how much verifiable information you could write about that parking meter, though... JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good detail, if someone wants to write detailed road articles, im all for it. --Cloveious 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Ladner Trunk Road, Ladner or a reluctant delete. If someone wants to do the work for a road that has regional significance, I say let them. --Rschen7754 23:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep signficant road in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia--Simon.Pole 08:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave briggs

Apparently this guy prefers anonymity. I think we should aid him in his preferences and delete this vanity. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lord o' mercy, who posts all this nonsense?! Peeper 16:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete heh... Roodog2k 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Houston

Delete. Probable Hoax, otherwise frontman for non-notable band. Can't find a band "Goatlords" with Google - though there is a business of that name selling heavy metal related videos. Bryan Houston gets no hits. Cje 16:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Only "Brian Houston" in allmusic.com is a Gospel singer. No hits on his nom de guerre or the band. Al 19:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wonder whether A7 speedy covers singers with unverifiable bands who don't meet WP:Music guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Groeck 21:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ow-Ow

Could not verify. Google search of "Ow-ow" +cryptozoology produces 17 unique hits, none of which appear to refer to this article's topic. Seems like a hoax to me. -Satori ^(talk) 16:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifyable through various combinations of ow-ow, the country names and creature/animal. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sheepish hoax based on Drop bear Tonywalton  | Talk 18:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Better not forget to grease behind the ears then. Alf 19:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, possible hoax, and in best of cases just non-notable. -Mariano 07:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. After the suggestion to move it, there was support for that and it will make things consistent in any case. -Splash 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest dams

This article is pointless, as the information exists at Cauvery and at Kallanai. Tom Radulovich 16:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep has potential to grow, and definately needs work, but not a candidate for deletion. At worst you could redirect it to a list of dams by age, or develop it into an interesting article on old dams. Trollderella 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, the information was added by Balasubramanian J, an 'Archival specialist in Indian Heritage informations'. Most of the information is present in other articles, so it may be a good idea to edit this and add more information on other old dams. Trollderella 16:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep definitly has room, and reason, to grow HoratioVitero 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep needs work, but an interesting subject. Roodog2k 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: don't lose the info; I'm not sure whether I recommend merging with Dam or History of Civil Engineering or keeping as a separate article, with consideration for a name that makes it easy to find for someone with an interest. That sounds like keep but keep and merge are not really the same vote but two alternatives. Still thinking -- WCFrancis 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Decided Keep. --WCFrancis 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Dam makes the most sense to me. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the consensus does indeed end up being keep, let me recommend a page move to a title like World's oldest dams, in keeping with precedent set by World's tallest structures and World's longest tunnels. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, too much information to merge comfortably, with potential for much more. Kappa 22:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Fernando Rizo. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article at present is rather pointless, but there's certainly potential here. Also, agree with the proposed name change to 'World's oldest dams'.Wandering oojah 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• I support the renaming as suggested above. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with dam, The information is definitely encyclopedic, but I think it would be better to have such info in the main dam article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Konterra

WP:NOT a crystal ball. DS 16:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep no real reason not to HoratioVitero 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator - this is just a planned housing/mall development. CDC (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE per nominator and VANITY!!! KONTERRA REALTY LLC is a real estate services organization with lines of business in real estate development, leasing, property management, and construction management. Konterra Realty was formed to excel at providing those services to specifically targeted commercial opportunities for the benefit of our clients, tenants, associates and the projects themselves. Roodog2k 19:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication it's going to happen anytime soon, speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. And breathe, Roodog2k, breathe. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. But OK, it was a bit funny, I'll put the content in BJAODN. Take a look. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates Versus Ninjas

• Delete Not encyclopedic JamesTeterenko 16:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsenseTucats 16:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and merge with Internet memes 68.100.148.233 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original " research" CDC (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neither verifiable, nor factual. Trollderella 19:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is obviously not encyclopedic, and not right for WP, but about a month ago I actually tried to use WP to look up what the deal was with the whole pirates vs. ninjas thing. I'd welcome an article that discussed the cultural/Internet phenomenon, origin, etc., but am not the person to write it. So, maybe Reduce and merge into Internet memes per 68.100.148.233. MCB 22:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense is nonsense. Why would you want to reduce and merge something that has no value? Delete. Dottore So 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I had looked up Pirates versus Ninjas in wikipedia in the hopes of learning about the origins or the (nonensical, though real) argument. I created the page in the hopes that someone who knew more about it could add to the page. I agree that we should Reduce and merge into Internet memes.
• Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN or delete. Nonsensical, it's funny though --Rschen7754 23:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Didn't find this one so funny though, so no BJAODN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Menus

Seems to be a translation of a book title. Utterly nn and apparently unverifiable. Dlyons493 16:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete more like a ho ho hoax. Alf 19:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Insert joke about planet named "Menus" here.  :) --Etacar11 00:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to menu. Although 'menu' is a one sentence dictdef stub at the moment, so should probably either be VfD'd or expanded itself. Proto t c 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN or delete. Very unverified. --Rschen7754 23:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhampir

This sounds like a made-up theory. I've never heard of the word "Dhampir" in real life before. If there aren't any serious sources, this article should be deleted. --84.154.180.20 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable, having hits on Yahoo! [6] and a dic. definition. I also disagree that the article should be deleted bcause "[he has] has never heard of the word "Dhampir" in real life." D. J. Bracey (talk) Image:St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png 17:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep used heavily in vampire role playing games (i.e.Vampire: The Masquerade)HoratioVitero 18:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD.

So it's a fictional term? The article makes "dhampir" look like a term that exists outside of role playing games.--84.154.180.20 18:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

actually, it is a folkloric term, just like it says in the text of the article. As far as making it look like a non-rpg term, check out the vampire page, makes it seem like you'll see them walking down the street some night and no one is complaining about thatHoratioVitero 18:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if the vampire article does give that impression then it should be modified to make it more clear. That isn;t the impression I get from the page, but then I've been working on that page for a long time and rather dizzy from all the major changes on it recently and may not see it as it now is. DreamGuy 18:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Vampire looks fine to me--"Vampires are mythical or folkloric creatures..." is the lead sentence. Meelar (talk) 21:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dhampir is more than an RPG term. Isn't Vampire Hunter D a dhampir? Zoe 20:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I think Blade (comics) is technically one, too. -HX 04:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Article could use a lot of improvement, with less fiction and more real world info and sources for verifiability added, but it's an actual foklore term cited in several nonfiction books. DreamGuy 18:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a nonfiction book where this term is used? --84.154.192.168 18:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Bunson's The Vampire Encyclopedia mentions the term as being in real world Romany folklore and being practiced up until modern times. Bunson says the last reported dhampir ceremony was reportedly staged by Kosovo gypsies in 1959. DreamGuy 18:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. A relatively obscure but apparently genuine folkloric term that's become more widespread after being used in roleplaying games and anime. If I remember right, it was used as a title of a fantasy novel by Scott Baker about 25 years ago (as "Dhampire"), and then on a comic book series or graphic novel before "breaking out." Monicasdude 18:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd stake my reputation on it. Alf the Impaler 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ze chil-tren of ze night, zey zing Keep zo byoo-ti-vully. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Word is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Mythica entry on vampires: [7]. Seems real to me. Of course, the article could always do with sources. --Etacar11 20:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable fictional term. Zoe 20:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The section "The Harsh Reality" seems to imply that these creatures exist and have health problems. It could also do with verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and cleanup. Better yet, split into two sections: one on the original folklore, another on contemporary gaming, anime and misc pop culture. A few proper sources wouldn´t kill anyone, either.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). There are an awful lot of keep votes from users with a very low number of edits, but even if they are ruthlessly discounted there is not a consensus to delete this article. So I won't bother working out which of those votes should be counted and which should not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TrekBBS

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. Article does not comport with WP:WEB Why do people say I have a vendetta when I've never even been a member of the site? It is asinine to assert motives without evidenceTanizaki 17:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• 'Keep' A webforum that has spawned this many site is worth noting, and Trek is quite well known - who in western world would not recognize phrases like "Beam me up Scotty" or "Live long and prosper" For the record, I can't recall posting at Trekbbs at all, though I have been there to search for news. OmegaPaladin 07:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• • NOTE: WP:WEB is not a policy on Wikipedia.Gateman1997 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Alexa rank of 84,932, too low for me. The article doesn't state any notability or meaningful impact on the Internet. Delete. I'm eagerly awaiting the inevitable whinefest thread over there. --Apostrophe 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • NOTE I just thought I would point this out.(this was posted out of order so more people would read it).

Even thought WP:WEB is not policy people are sitting it as reason for delete. Even thought the board meets one of the criteria. Number 3. And WP:WEB says you only need to meet one.

The board has 6999 register users. With 3565 users once being on at the same time. Also this is from trekBBS

"In order to prevent abuse, you may register only one user name at the Trek BBS..." So there will be few sock puppets.

“A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria: 1. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better 2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years 3. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members“ Elfwood 12:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment 7000 members, part of UGO network - is notable... but I'm going to abstain for now Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator CDC (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nominated due to childish reason on the stardestroyer.net VFD.Gateman1997 18:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep please it is not as popular as stardestoryer maybe but still wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Your persuing a vendetta and crusade Tanizaki. Not very smart of you. First you attack SD.net, now your trying to kill Trek BBS. A definate vote keep from me. Alyeska 20:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• KeepIt is the most popular startrek site on the net. Larger than the official site even. It certainly deservers a page (P.s. I only joined that board after seeing some one wanting to VFD it and currently have 0 posts).Elfwood 20:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What do people have against large, notable message boards that have significant memberships and valid topics? SpringheelJack
• Delete, despite the nominator's motives. Not notable. —Charles O'Rourke 23:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nominator --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment You agree with the nominator, yet the reasons he cited are invalid. WP:WEB is not offical Wiki policy. It even states as much in the article. Alyeska 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WP:WEB is not policy, and the only reason this VfD exists is due to a personal vendetta. TrekBBS should be considered on its own merits, not caught up in a personal crusade. PredatorX 12:22, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12)
• Delete. Yet another single-interest message board. And WP:WEB may not be policy, but it's a damn good guideline. --Calton | Talk 00:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It isn't single-interest; less than half of the subforums are about Trek, and a small (but noticeable) number of members post there despite not liking Trek. --DaveJB 15:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Calton & nom. -PlainSight 04:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 09:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but also slap nominator with a big wet sack of WP:POINT. Proto t c 09:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It meets the WP:WEB guidelines. - Lifefeed 13:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Invalid reason cited, and otherwise a notable board. --DaveJB 15:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree w/Charles O'Rourke, Calton Dottore So 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable and verifiable --ERTW 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It is as notable as ratemystump.com Its subject matter is obsolete as well.

• Keep - The original article stands. The reason it's being deleted, or attempted to, is because the person asking for the deletion is just trying to cause trouble. The site's fine, the article is fine, he is just wasting your time. Ignore him.WeyounTDB 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This entry is a waste of webspace on Wikipedia's servers.

• Keep - The TrekBBS far outpowers, outpopulates and outclasses it's spinoffs such as Wordforge and TrollKingdom. Two boards who have fought to get TrekBBS's name deleted from Wikipedia. In fact, several members from Wordforge have repeatedly tried to defame TrekBBS's Wiki entry. To name two are Face and BizarroEnt, both members of Wordforge and both responsible for spreading libelous claims. TrekBBS will exist long after these two boards are digital dust.

• Keep - TrekBBS is the largest and most organized Trek board on the WWW. And I agree with the above comment, that other spinoff boards are hoping to see TrekBBs taken down, out of pure malice and jealousy.

• KEEP - This entry must stay!Urizen 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - And lose the link to trekbbs.co.uk? I think not!--Borgs8472 01:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wordsmithing

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note - this now exists on Two pages

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wordsmithing and Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Wordsmithing

• move to wikitionary wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but it does link to one...HoratioVitero 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiktionary already contains a perfectly good entry for this. --Alan Au 18:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Alf 19:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per above - Tεxτurε 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cje 08:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teemu Viippola

Another hoax by 213.138.128.13 (talk • contribs), the author of Medieval black metal and other stuff. Gets a few unrelated Google hits. It's had the {{music-importance}} tag for a while and has not been updated to show notability. I guess this could be speedied as well, but I'm bringing it here for now. - ulayiti (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Alf 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy removal. Hoax. Dottore So 17:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax - Tεxτurε 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Rschen7754 23:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. HappyCamper 06:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Agnew

Non-notable, possibly a hoax. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy under A7, appearing on the Weakest Link is not an assertion of notability. - ulayiti (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It was the "death by simultaneous bolts of lightning" bit that I was taking as an assertion of notability, to be honest. It's getting more notable not to have been on Weakest Link. No hits at all on the lightning, though - I do wonder if it's a hoax due to Geoff Agnew of Larne's contribution to a BBC web-based debate on stem cell research here, but the dates don't make sense as that debate closed in December last year. I'd be happy to see it speedied, though. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I must admit, still scratching my head here, I find a Larne rugby playing Geoff Agnew here. I look at the first post to this and think it's too unlikely to be a hoax. Alf 20:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The hoax part is the thing that says he was struck by lightning. The rest is just vanity. - ulayiti (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a clear speedy, but definitely deletable. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. "Geoff Agnew" +lightning gets no hits on Google. Angela. 00:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it were so, being struck by lightning does not make one notable. And hell, I've been on "Weakest Link". Denni☯ 01:02, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Pah. I've been on 15~1. And I'm still not notable. Tonywalton  | Talk

• Delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Control Debate

Not notable... site has 39 registered users --Bob 18:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linkspam. And who's Christain? Tonywalton  | Talk 18:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Alf 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. Christian probably owns the site. :-p --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Kaszor

While the student newspaper seems to be notable, I'm not sure if this year's editor is. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: non-notable bio JDoorjam 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete to The Gateway He is notible wrt his newspaper, but not on his own... :'( Roodog2k 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the Guide to the Votes for Deletion. Merge and delete is not a compatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Just trying to help. Roodog2k
• Delete speedy or otherwise, no merge required, is already on newspaper article. Alf 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Verify, then Keep if his paper is woth being here, the editor definitly is HoratioVitero 20:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a student news paper, which means there's probably a new editor in chief every single year. JDoorjam 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Horatio, there is a middle-way between keep and delete. Not everything needs to have it's own entry. Multiple minor subjects can be discussed in one larger article. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Sdedeo 21:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article on the editor and merge the article about the newspaper into the article about the school. Zoe 21:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Any other magazine or newspaper with a per-issue circulation of 11,000 would be allowed an article. The stated policy is that circulation of 5,000+ makes a publication notable enough to be on here. We really can't hold student newspapers to a different standard than we hold non-student publications; if you disagree with the 5,000 figure, take it up as a policy discussion rather than simply imposing a standard other than 5,000 on one particular publication. Bearcat 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article is about me, it isn't needed. The merge on the Gateway page is unneeded though dkaszor 21:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as quickly as possible. Hall Monitor 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete editor, keep newspaper. Bearcat 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what Bearcat said. Mindmatrix 22:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, before anyone misinterprets my statement, I was trying to say as per Bearcat. I don't want Bearcat's comments to be stricken; really, I don't... Mindmatrix 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katzi Vaptzarov

Not notable - Google mainly derives from wiki Dlyons493 19:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete huh? Notability not established. --Etacar11 03:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Genworth Financial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genworth

• Delete. This article is part meaningless gibberish and part vanity. I didn't realize it was possible to write a page this badly. There's not even a pretence of it not being vanity: note the "our companies" bit. --Blackcap | talk 19:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • After delete, Redirect to Genworth Financial as per Mgm. --Blackcap | talk 16:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

They didn't write the page, they copied and pasted it from various bits of the Genworth website, such as here, which accounts for the execrable formatting. It's copyvio, but is it worth flagging it as such or just letting the VfD run? Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • I didn't realize that. That explains the lack of punctuation. As for the copyvio, it's such a miserable article that the VfD ought to run anyway, but it's good that you pointed it out. --Blackcap | talk 20:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn co., reads as advert. Alf 20:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Don't list as copyvio. A 5 day VFD run should draw enough editors to clean it up if it's possible to write a valid article about this company. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • After deletion, redirect to Genworth Financial per Alba. Nothing worth merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvageable to Genworth Financial, delete copyvioish crud, and redirect to Genworth Financial. Alba 22:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 03:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. JYolkowski // talk 21:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiguar

Nonexistant hybrid. 162 English Google results. --Apostrophe 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Merge and redirect to Panthera hybrid. --Apostrophe 22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyway, wouldn't it be a jiger? Tonywalton  | Talk 20:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No. The name of hybrid animals depends on which animal was the father, and which the mother. Contrast tigon vs liger. ManoaChild 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That would make a mule a dorse, and a hinny a honkey, then :) (Actually I knew that). Merge and Redirect per Apostrophe. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shoot Merge and redirect all tiguars, jaggers and jigers on sight. Alf 20:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (changed vote from delete to M&R). Alf 10:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait for one to be born. Currently not much more than a dicdef. ManoaChild 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per Apostrophe ManoaChild 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per nominator. --Etacar11 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political weapon

neologism, original research. Delete. JDoorjam 19:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. There might be room for an NPOV article somewhere about the political aspects of warfare in general, but this ain't it. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tonywalton. If deleted, links on Weapons of mass destruction can go too. Alf 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
• Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. However, the form of "keep" is in doubt. There were some excellent arguments raised in favor of keeping this only as a redirect or as a merge and redirect (to preserve GFDL). Consensus was not reached on that recommendation. This discussion should continue on the appropriate Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon

This article is simply about a photo. The photo has a description field to add information to it. The rest of the info, and the picture itself, is found on the article about the man, Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Elfguy 19:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• so redirect. Gazpacho 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Did, someone reverted. Hence this VFD. Elfguy 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect (changed from delete, I was unaware of the issues Proto raises below), pretty much same as on Nguyen Ngoc Loan page anyway, I can't see it being useful as a redirect. Alf 20:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Re-redirect to Nguyen Ngoc Loan and make it stick. Zoe 20:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the photo itself is notable. In fact, the photo is probably more notable than the man.-Satori ^(talk) 21:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that a Western bias, assuming that a general of a sovereign nation's army is not notable? Zoe 21:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article on photographer who won prize for it. Only break it out to it's own article when it actually gets some meat. Not everything needs a seperate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper, and there's nothing wrong with keeping a stub on a notable topic.-Satori ^(talk) 21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Satori. This is a famous photo, enough so that a NY Times obituary of Nguyen Ngoc Loan spends more time discusing the photo, and the event it documents, than it does the man himself.--Soultaco 22:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable photo. Kappa 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merge. Arguably the single most famous photo of the Vietnam war. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Capitalistroadster makes a fine point below. Changing my vote. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Nguyen Ngoc Loan where it can be a section. Noone is going to look for this title. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a very famous photo, and a groundbreaking point in photo journalism. Redirecting to the man misses the point. Furthermore, if you merge it with something, is it with the article on the general, Nguyen Ngoc Loan, or the one on Eddie Adams (photographer) the photographer? You're going to end up with a lot of duplicate information in either case. Better to link to the photo page from both for basic information, and write about the personal context on each page. Trollderella 00:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into a new section of Nguyen Ngoc Loan as per sane naming conventions, and leave a redirect as per GFDL. Of course it's notable, and of course it should be kept. Nobody has voted to delete, Kappa, don't panic. This should never, ever have gone to VfD. And of course it would go to the article on Loan, rather than that on Eddie Adams (photographer). Is the story of John F Kennedy's assassination kept at Abraham Zapruder? Keeping this kind of info at such a awkwardly named article is crazy. Proto t c 09:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be, but what about a famous photograph of the assasination taken by someone? We are not talking about the man, or the incident, but the photograph itself. Trollderella 17:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per Capitalistroadster. Well known photo, but a the added context from the Nguyen Ngoc Loan would be nice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This photo is incredibly notable. Hipocrite 12:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The photo itself is notable. >>sparkit|TALK<< 13:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The photo is notable for sure, but the issue is that people will look for either of these 2 men names, and get to their articles, which already have this photo, with almost all the same information, hence making this article somewhat useless. Elfguy 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The importance of this image is indisputable. The question, though, is how to find it. I would have had no idea to look for Nguyen Ngoc Loan. There ought to be a "famous photographs" or maybe "famous images of war" article to serve as a clearing house for this kind of content. As a test, how would you have found this picture if you didn't know that it was taken by this man? - Dottore So 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, there is a category of historic photos or somesuch isn't there? Trollderella 21:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC) PS Yes - Category:Memorable photographs
    • Comment: However, please remember that Wikipedia is not an image gallery. If you want to find this photograph, Wikipedia isn't really the right tool for that job. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps move to a better title. --Oldak Quill 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very good, but please merge with General Nguyen Ngoc or at least rename to a shorter title. Radiant_>|< 23:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --tranquileye 12:23:47, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Woohookitty 09:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Active Camouflage

Stub for a minor Halo power-up. I would be bold and redirect this to Active camouflage, but I didn't want to start a revert war. -- Grev -- Talk 20:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Halo, Redirect per nominator — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:29:11, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
• M&R per nom. Alf 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge content to [Halo]] and redirect to Active camouflage because of capitalization. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge and Redirect per nominee. I have the itch to be bold but don't want to be zapped for violating WP:DP. Alba 22:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not important enough to be merged with Halo, please, think of the users. Kappa 22:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa, I don't get what you mean here. I play Halo and Halo 2, and I don't see anything wrong with a merge and redirect here. Talk to me, hoss. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Providing this level of detail on a main page clutters it up too much for generaly users. Kappa 23:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern, but the existing paragraph on active camouflage is almost as long as this article already; it'd be a tiny merge at mostt. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Active camouflage, Merge any Halo information not already in Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 into their respective articles. Not a notable enough videogame powerup to merit its own article. Not sure any videogame powerup outside of Super Mario Bros is notable enough for its own article, actually. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• There isn't a single videogame powerup ever that deserves its own article. Adding three lines to a main page (as that's all that would be needed) is not cluttering. Merge all info, leave a redirect to Active camouflage. Having Active Camouflage and Active camouflage go to different articles is far more confusing for general users - Kappa, surely you can see that? Proto t c 09:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love's Enduring Promise

Obviously this page can't stay as it is because it's simply one person's personal reaction to the film - i.e. not ecyclopaedic. (The current content should be put into IMDB or similar as a review.)

However, I've not nominated this for a speedy delete in case someone thinks the film itself (not someone's POV) can be made into an encyclopaedic entry. Finbarr Saunders 20:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-encyclopedic review. If you want it to be made into an article, drop of a request at the movie wikiproject. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Clean-up, the movie was nominated for a couple of awards. The article might have some potential. --Bob 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was actually going to make this into a useful stub myself, but when I went to IMDB to do the research, I found that this was a 2004 made-for-TV movie starring a bunch of unknowns that was nominated (but did not win) a couple of awards I've never even heard of. Kramer vs. Kramer this ain't. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fernando. If someone wanted to recreate a useful article about it later, no problem. But I doubt it would happen. --Etacar11 03:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per above - Tεxτurε 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages

This article has no place in an encyclopedia. Though I am a huge Harry Potter fan, I can find no compelling reason to list the foreign language chapter titles of every chapter of every HP book. This is an English encyclopedia, and this article's contents amount to useless trivia that has no academic value...at all. Brendan OShea 20:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• For full disclosure's sake, I'll note that this page was previously listed for deletion in 2004. That discussion can be found here. --Brendan OShea 20:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And a month later, discussed again here.
• Delete. What's the point? Tonywalton  | Talk 20:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A list of Harry Potter book titles (which, hey, already exists) would be interesting, though. This is just excessive. I don't even particularly think a list of the chapter titles in English would be all that useful. (Get the book and read the table of contents. Really.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, put English chapter titles in articles with book summaries and link to the articles in other wikipedias if you want to interligual. Just a list of chapter titles, provides no useful information and is in fact source material. (Can chapter titles be copyrighted?) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. —Charles O'Rourke 23:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless!! --Neigel von Teighen 23:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm impressed with effort the author put into this article, but it's serious and bizzare cruft nonetheless. -PlainSight 04:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 14 opinions to "delete" (2 anon or very new users discounted), 6 opinions to "keep as is" (3 anon or very new users and one known troll discounted) and 4 that appear to prefer "keep as merge". While the community's opinion on the claim of "original research" remained ambiguous, I will note that the samples presented of specific outside sources were successfully rebutted.

Clearly, there is a decision that this content should not remain as an independent article. However, there is not the overwhelming consensus necessary to delete the content. Despite arguments and counter-arguments, conflicting opinions continued to be added to the discussion. I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision.

However, noting that the content was originally part of the Firefly (television series) article, I am going to place a copy of the content on that article's Talk page, redirect this article there (to preserve GFDL) and ask the editor/readers of that article to make the final determination of the use or removal of this text. Rossami (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly and Outlaw Star

Original research. delete UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is not original research, it is a theory supported by large numbers of Firefly fans. If all speculation is original research, why is there a speculation section in Firefly (television series) at all? Staxringold 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculations on par with Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences but completely non-notable. And besides, this opens the door to creating articles comparing any two remotely related things. Borderline original research, too. The idea has been floated around before, but your interpretation of it is original research.RADICALBENDER★ 21:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note You'll note no one is voting THAT article for deletion. If they're on par, why not vote that for deletion as well? Staxringold 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Easy, because, like I said in the second part of that sentence you skipped over, this is completely non-notable. A couple of people thought there were some similarities on the internet. The Lincoln-Kennedy thing is widely reported. I've seen newspaper articles on it, I had a worksheet on it in elementary school. The Firefly-Outlaw Star thing was a couple of random people on the internet. RADICALBENDER★ 23:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge interesting comparison, not really worthy of its own page. Malo 21:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not nearly enough relevant Google results for a subject that is widely-discussed as this would have to be to be worth including. You could come up with similarities like this with just about any sci-fi show. (Or, say, any epic fantasy story written in the last thirty or forty years compared with The Lord of the Rings.) Unless they get sued for copyright infringement or it breaks into mainstream news. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If these really are belief commonly held by firefly fans, you should be able to cite published sources that verify that very fact. Otherwise this constitutes original research. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I confess as a Firefly geek I am intrigued. Sdedeo 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (see below)
• Merge into Firefly tv series article if sourced and verified, otherwise delete. I share the opinion of Bmicomp. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation. How do you source and verify somebody's opinion? Zoe 21:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Outside sources (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). 'nuff for you, or you want more? Just hit Ctrl+F 'Outlaw Star' and you'll find numerous other fans who believe there is at least some connection between the two. This is not just my theory, this is not original research. Again, Zoe, why do any speculation sections exist anywhere then? This is a commonly held theory amongst many fans. Staxringold 21:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. The first and third links have persons unfamiliar with the series making this comparison, then being corrected by people that have actually seen all of the series. In the second link a person made the comparison, but after being chastised said "I was being slightly facetious." The fourth involved someone claiming Whedon plagiarized Outlaw Star, which I doubt a fan of Firefly would say seriously. The fifth mostly seemed to be people insulting the show, including comparisons to Outlaw Star, Trigun, and Cowboy Bebop. The sixth link seems to have involved persons who were not fans, and did not seem very familiar with the show. The seventh is a Wikipedia mirror. On the last page you linked to, the comparison was only made before the person watched the show, and I did check the other five pages of the thread to see if it was mentioned later. These links only show that a few persons on the internet that are unfamiliar with, uninterested in, or dislike the show have made comparisons to other Sci-Fi/Western shows like Outlaw Star, Trigun, and Cowboy Bebop, which does not justify this page's existence. Sethoeph 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I really think the speculation section of the main article is a bit too much. There is always speculation among science fiction fans. This show just wasn't big enough to have developed speculations that are significant to people who aren't fans. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be well sourced by Staxringold. It's on the edge, though. Sdedeo 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge' with Firefly. -Senori 22:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • This was originally a section of Firefly (television series) that a few of us objected to. Some of us wanted it gone entirely, some suggested keeping it as a separate article. I, obviously, was one of the ones who wanted it entirely removed. There is already a section in that article that includes a comparison of Firefly to a few others shows, including Outlaw Star. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • No there isn't. What are you talking about? The only thing remotely like that is the link to this article I posted under Speculation to keep you guys happy. Staxringold 22:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph in the Setting section. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we let articles like this pass, that would just set up precedent for more worthless comparison articles. At the very least, report it as something that many people believe, not "lookit! grass and pickles are green!" --Apostrophe 22:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Star Trek versus Star Wars Kappa 22:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neither Firefly nor Outlaw Star is as popular or significant as either Star Trek or Star Wars. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since when was popularity a factor in deciding on keeping an article? This is a often thought-of connection, as a seperate article it takes up no signifigant space, so what's wrong? Staxringold 02:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Accoding to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Personally, I think the connection is worth mentioning. I don't think it's necessary to explore it at great length. (These are not exactly brilliant deductions. They are in fact fairly obvious.) As an individual article I feel that it's more of a fan essay than an encyclopedia article. It would make a wonderful article on a fansite. Perhaps such an article (on a reputable, well-established fansite) would make a useful external link. I happen not to think it merits coverage as an encyclopedia article. You are welcome to disagree. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems an interesting and well written entry on a theory--Firedrake 03:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit. Zoe 04:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Firefly and add discussion about similarities with Galaxina, Oblivion (film), and Ice Pirates while you're at it. 23skidoo 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. An interesting article about an interesting series. Whats so wrong with it? Ppe42 12:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Comparisons are inherently unencyclopedic. --Apostrophe 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until articles comparing George W. Bush and Hulk Hogan, Buttercups and the Jaguar E-Type and Doctor Who and the Hundred-Years War are created (and please do not create these articles). And on closer reading, it looks like original research. Proto t c 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Doctor Who and the Hundred Years' War, otoh.... Dottore So 18:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both shows just follow the same mtyhical archetypes. Besides, half the article is just talking about how they're similar because they both have a scene with a girl in a box. Kuralyov 18:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with articles about comparisons between different subjects. -- OldRight 20:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The initial entry as it appeared on the main Firefly page was badly written, badly laid out and clearly biased. The current page as it stands is a good point of interest for people interested in the TV series (fans or otherwise) and is dramatically improved over its attrocious original form, if a touch overlong. 02:14, 27 August 2005 (BST) (non-registered user)
• Delete, WP:NOR. -Sean Curtin 04:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with the intention of leaving the door open to other comparisons, i.e. 'Firefly and X show', in the same (and at that time renamed) article. -Fang Aili 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That only makes it worse. --Apostrophe 17:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just because you don't like something, Apostrophe, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mention. Firefly is a clear amalgamation of several genres, and is an incredibly popular cult favorite, so discussing it's base ingredients is not a bad thing. Staxringold 21:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Key word being "discussing". Wikipedia is not a venue for opinion, which this article strongly implies; the opinion being that there is some sort of connection between the two series. Otherwise, why create the article, besides to report on people's beliefs (which this article fails to do so)? Still otherwise, articles for the sake of comparsion are inane. George W. Bush and Willaim Clinton have netural-colored hair, were presidents at one time in their lives, have wives, wear suits, and lives/lived in the White House! Let's make a article that details every aspect of their lives that are the same! No. I can be swayed by the fact that it's believed by many people, but the article isn't written like that. --Apostrophe 04:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup. The comparison is well-known in fandom in a way that 'George Bush and Hulk Hogan' is not, and while in some literal sense it's original research, so is just about any popular culture article. However, much of it is ridiculous. There are genuine points of similarity between the series like the "space western" setting, the girl in a box, and the Chinese influence. These are enough that people have noticed them--and then grasped at straws in their search for more. Elements like a musclebound warrior and a mystic, which can be found in almost any series, are not reasonable as similarities between the two shows. Ken Arromdee 21:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ą

• Keep with the note that a merge would be my second choice Darthdavid
• Delete. Most of the compasisons are downright ridiculous. Yes, let's compare a smart kid with a warrior woman who can kill you with her pinky. Let's compare a irritable catgirl who was an actual ambassador to a high-class prostitute sarcastically called 'Ambassador' in one episode by the captain who disrespects her profession. And whoever suggested that Mal and Kaylee have an adversarial relationship clearly only ever saw the episode Shindig--and only half of it at that. Would you keep up a page that compares Lost to Gilligan's Isle because they both involve people stranded on an island?

• Did you bother to read the page's history? Because if you did you'd see that was vadalism by some random guy, not the original article that's being voted on. Staxringold 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• User:Staxringold removed this comment. I know why you did (because it's a comment on a version of the article that is no longer applicable), but we don't remove others' comments in general because it's poor form. Besides, this was the user's first contribution, the vote itself is unlikely to be taken into consideration. RADICALBENDER★ 18:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• All right, I thought all votes were counted (so I was afraid a quick review of votes would miss that this vote was wholly unapplicable) Staxringold 20:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for the refurbished article is no original research according to whats said on original research: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources." I have to note, that I found this page only because i was interested in the article (as a firefly fan, searching for crossreferences) and it gave useful knowledge to me. It says in which points the two shows in question have things in common. Just stating facts resulting from the original film material (primary source), nothing more nothing less. Offering facts to the user i thought is the aim wikipedia has. Crossreferencing between entrys is a thing lacking as much as it's necessary to get a view on a topic in its whole width when you doing a research via wikipedia (I'am not speaking of linking from Lincoln to every other "President of USA"-Entry). Linking to similar things is the lowest level of crossreferencing. Declaring on what facts a crossreference is build on is a true help when you wan't to find out about the value of a crossreference. As I saw the crossreferences on Firefly article to other shows, I asked me why are they crossreferenced and where are the relations. This article gave me the understanding of that. So besides from passing the wikipedia guidelines on original research, this article was a chance of getting the knowledge (not an speculation) on which facts the crossreference of Firefly and Outlaw Star (I heard of before) is based on.
  • User's only edit. --Apostrophe 05:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not hard to draw comparisons between stories by selectively taking generalized aspects of the plot or characters. Last night I read a comparison between the Lion King and Star Wars that was more convincing than this. Whilst it can be fun and entertaining coming up with them, such comparisons do not make for good encyclopedia articles. Sethoeph 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Proto. There's nothing particularly revelatory here, and neither series is as notable as any of the other (also borderline) comparison articles. This is cruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable comparison. —Cleared as filed. 03:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eon (band)

The usual bandcruft with shades of link spam. - Lucky 6.9 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't we speedy this? What a load of tripe. You'd think people would have something better to do that add useless material to an encyclopedia. --Blackcap | talk 20:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• you're right, useless tripe like "useless tripe" doesn't belog in and encyclopedia, but then niether does personal attacks which there seems to be pleanty of here

• That isn't a personal attack. It's a fact. And, it's frustrating to have to clean up after people who abuse the site. - Lucky 6.9 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. allmusic has two different formers bands by that name, but no mention of these guys. Friday (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, substubby advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• This doom metal band article will meet a grisly end through being deleted due to failure to meet WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity stub. --Etacar11 03:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment A few things about the band, at least what I could find: Google gives some 100 hits on Eon Mexico banda Monterrey metal (which is pretty narrow), almost all connected with the band. They seam to have played in the MONTERREY METAL FEST. On the other hand, the band was formed in 2003, so probably not very popular yet. -Mariano 08:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to YTMND. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're the man now, dog

First off, this phrase is already described in great detail on YTMND. Second, it's definitely a dicdef, and therefore has been moved to Wiktionary. All we can do with it now is delete it. Oy, I changed my mind, I think it should be a redirect to YTMND now. —MESSEDROCKER (userpage) (talk) 21:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to YTMND. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to YTMND. ~ Syrae Faileas 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if anything's missing and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ǧ

Single letter in little-used language. Doesn't display (but maybe that's my browser). Probably has at least seeming synonyms i.e. blank boxes. Maybe delete isn't right but how should this/these be handled? Dlyons493 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• It shows up fine on my browser (Safari) as a capital G with a háček - a little upturned circumflex over it. On a quick random search for articles on single letters WP has articles on Z, ü, æ, ø and ç, so I vote Keep and hope that someone expands the stub. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's OK on Safari. Seems to be %C7%A6 in Explorer, so probably there won't be synonyms after all. Maybe this more a browser than a wiki issue? Dlyons493 21:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're looking for suggestions on how to handle these, I would start with adding an image that shows what the letter is supposed to look like regardless of what Internet Explorer does. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether your nomination was "odd character" (which by the way looks fine on Firefox and Mozilla too, though IE5:Mac won't deal with it at all) or "article about a single letter". If the latter I'd say 'keep', if the former, Arenel has a good point, but searching for the article would be a bit tedious if your browser wouldn't allow you to input the character. 81.153.185.255 21:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Tonywalton  | Talk 21:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Unicode 01E6, UTF-8 C7 A6, so no aliases. It's a defined character. Tonywalton  | Talk
• Keep. Encyclopaedic topic. David | Talk 21:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above and per numerous precedents such as ß. Martg76 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. And use Firefox for viewing pleasure. feydey 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not? ~~ N (t/c) 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be concensus on notability of single letters - so Keep. Re viewability I'll think about Aranel's suggestion - easy enough to upload a graphic for a single one, but I don't see any way of discovering others systematically. Dlyons493 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - But can somebody upload a GIF of the letter to resolve the text display browser problem? Won't display using 64-bit MSIE 6.0, either. -PlainSight 04:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Done (PNG, at least). Tonywalton  | Talk 12:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there appear to be a few of these, going by [[Category:Latin_letters]] (which these aren't). P̌ has a cleanup-importance stub on it. "P̌" is 'p with a háček' for IE users. 192.18.1.9 15:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Tonywalton  | Talk 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it a little, and I think it deserves to stay on analogy with other articles about letters with diacritics (like Ñ). After all, they're not hurting anyone and they satisfy the curiosities of linguistically inclined such as myself. If you're having troubles viewing it on your browser, I suggest you download the Gentium font, which contains just about every Latin and Greek character encoded in Unicode. — Ливай | Ⓣ 15:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Consistent with other letter articles. These are Latin letters, in the sense that Latin is a script that includes the letters used in Latin and all those added for languages that use basically that set plus a few. Nobody has come up with a better name.--Prosfilaes 20:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) although I suspect there is more information about Mr. Millar in this VFD debate than there is in the article about him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Millar

I'm not posting this for Speedy Delete because the page has had several edits and some content changes. I do not believe this person is notable, or at the very least, there is no reason listed. What's odd is that the original version of the article listed this Alan Millar as an athlete (though it was quickly changed to the academic definition). Unless someone can find something noteworthy about this guy, I recommend a delete versus an expansion. Syrae Faileas 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Listed in Marquis Who's Who 2004. Edited McMillan Studies in Contemporary Philosophy in 1987. Editor with Jose Luis Bermudez of an Oxford University Press volume called Reason and Nature: Essays in the Nature of Philosophy and appears to have contributed a range of articles to journals and books. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dallaspeeps

• Delete Advertising Staxringold 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam, not noteworthy. Malo 20:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete and so tagged. website advert. Friday (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
• Delete However, this article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; I have removed the tag. Denni☯ 00:48, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 21:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 for being an advert. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Measurement Group

Blatant advertising. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and wikify It looks like a business, but it's really a more of a trade organization that has been around since 1975, and hosts what seems to be the major international technical conference in this field each year. There are a lot of articles about them on the web. I can't find specs on membership numbers, but they've got chapters in the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and more. --Outlander 21:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GIMO

Neologism. However, even if it wasn't a neologism, it would be more of a dictionary article.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per submitter --Bob 21:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf 22:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per above - Tεxτurε 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spinal Cord Untethering

Non-notable. A google search comes up with 557 hits without quotes and only 117 with them. This just isn't enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Blackcap | talk 21:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if it's a real medical procedure. This techical information is perfectly encyclopedic. We don't only do articles on pop culture. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Mate, I wasn't objecting to this because it's not pop culture; I know WP has medicine in it. I was objecting to it because it's not a common enough medical procedure to warrant an article here. There does seem to be a condition called a "tethered spinal cord," which (from what I can tell) is a kind of spina bifida. If there's someone who knows spinal procedures well enough to comment on it more than this article says, maybe it could be put into the spina bifida article. Otherwise, it's just an unheard of medical procedure. --Blackcap | talk 22:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 117 google hits. Kappa 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A search on Google Scholar (highly recommended for this type of subject matter) yields 48 scholarly articles. Definitely a real procedure, and medical procedures strike me as inherently notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fernando Rizo. I'd also suggest expanding the article (I've placed a medical-stub notice on it) and renaming it to spinal cord untethering. --Idont Havaname 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per above vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:47, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 to delete, but move to List of Sacramento criminals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacramento criminals

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -Satori ^(talk) 21:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Move to List of Sacramento criminals. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Marskell 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT. Proto t c 09:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move --Snafuu 15:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT the Sacramento Police blotter. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:15:15, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• Move to new catory or "list of" - Tεxτurε 21:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnum fist comics and Nightprowler

Is some kids comic book (Nightprowler), google gives 0 for "Magnum fist comics" the releaser. feydey 21:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comic book vanity. --fvw* 23:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete cool comic. --Etacar11 03:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this page on here. Jeffro rules. (Unsigned vote by 150.199.176.125 (talk • contribs), only other edits are vandalism) --Etacar11 15:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete - awesome. - Tεxτurε 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. That's if you discount the 2 anon votes, one of which was an only post and the other is a vandal. Woohookitty 09:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Vasquez

Non-notable gameshow contestant. No Big Brother contestant should have an article about themself unless there is something notable about them other than their appearance on the show. Repeated attempts to redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series) have been reverted by an anon. The article has been repeatedly vandalized in the past to add extreme personal attacks. Zoe 21:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Any Big Brother contestant that anyone wants to take the time to write a bio page for should be allowed a page. Many other contestants have them and they seem to do no harm and indeed are informative. Ms. Vasquez is also an actress and a dancer for the Dallas Desperado's. That the article is being frequently updated would show to me that there is at least some interest in her. Some of what I believe Zoe refers to as personal attacks are facts about the subject that some might find unpleasant. --Firedrake 23:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User's fourth edit. --TheMidnighters 01:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Charles O'Rourke 23:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. --TheMidnighters 01:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, precedents have been set - a lot - for this. Proto t c 09:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not that I have enough edits to be taken seriously, even if I had set up a name. But hopefully this will satisfy Zoe's lust for control and she won't go after other's work.--66.149.92.242 13:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider adhering to established VFD precedents based on community consensus evidence of a "lust for control". --TheMidnighters 13:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect that you would. --66.149.92.242 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. 66.149.92.242: stop snivelling. Dottore So 18:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, master, sahib, boss-man type! Whatever you say! Wouldn't want to offend any you holy named folks.--66.149.92.242 18:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

you might just as well let it go, dude. They'll do whatever they feel like.--216.119.131.248 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There are other pages of contestants that have fewer accomplishments than this one. Separate entries keep the main Big Brother page cleaner.

• Above vote was unsigned by 216.119.131.248 and is the users only edit on record.

• Redirect This article keeps turning into POV libel, and is non-notable. - CHAIRBOY 00:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I'm a bit biased in that I'm a big fan of the show, but Jennifer played a big role in her season and is (at least at the moment) one of this season's most hated villains. As long as other pop culture niches are allowed a significant number of articles (like the Harry Potter community, for example), I can't see why this article and ones like it shouldn't be kept. --PatadyBag 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to a redirect and protected the page. Zoe 05:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight knowing you've saved us all from this scourge.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timmonsville Whirlwinds

Complete worthless load of tripe vanity. I wish I could shoot the people who make this stuff through the head. --Blackcap | talk 20:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I'm sorry, that was a bit much. I was getting frustrated. Please forgive me. --Blackcap | talk 21:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I suggest the nominator read over WP:COOL a few times.  :) Thatdog 22:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Whew! Read it twice, my heartrate seems to be coming back to normal. --Blackcap | talk 22:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable Sliggy 22:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Alf 23:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn footballcruft. --Etacar11 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --JeremyStein 19:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Deep End

This should simply redirect to the artist mentioned johnpseudo 22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have the sneaking suspicion I should have just done this myself...

• Keep, albums all have pages. Kappa 22:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't have a problem with this page. Alf 22:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

particularly now. "Fast Fingers" Alf 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Kappa HoratioVitero 23:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one if this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, has been to VfD. Zoe 23:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If the artists have their own article, so can the albums. Let it grow. CanadianCaesar 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa, see VFD Precedents. --TheMidnighters 01:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move. Check out what links there, and note that there's a novel, a film, and at least two other albums (Gov't Mule, Spyro Gyra) by that name. Such a common phrase needs a more precise name 66.167.252.85 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) the non copyvio version. It appears to me that the deletion of the copyvio and the move of the temporary to the main spot has been done already. A bit out of process not to have a VFD tag on the "/temp" article as well, but I'll look the other way... Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cressida Dick

Possible vanity article on not-particularly-noteworthy senior officer of London's Metropolita Police (Ms Dick is Head of the Diversity Directorate). Eddie.willers 22:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The link given is to site which has article word for word, except the line that says "Note that the above has been copied word for word from details elsewhere stored". possible copyvio, but I'm not an expert on those. Alf 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup. I doubt very much that this is a vanity article. Cressida Dick is a known name in the British police. She is one of the most senior female officers in the Met and currently commands Operation Trident. -- Necrothesp 23:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio as per Alf. I will report it now. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain: I have created a fresh stub Cressida Dick/Temp, and as I do not have any clue to her notability, I am abstaining myself from the voting process.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yggdrasil festival

Pure advertisement for an upcoming local music festival full of non-notable local acts. User has also linked this page on many other music-related pages. Even if this is made NPOV and advertising content removed, I posit that this festival does not meet notability criteria (Unsigned by Jgm)

• Delete non-notable POV advert for a non-notable event Soltak | Talk 00:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn local event spam. --Etacar11 03:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Denni☯ 18:11, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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