Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 28

< August 27	August 29 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 08:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam J. Pearce

I would not expect to find his entry in any encyclopedia pertaining to any degree of completeness. Cdyson37 00:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. His notability rests on whether a)he has standalone note or b)the publication he writes for is so notable for his column specifically that he is notable just by writing it. His name alone, gets only 7 Google hits, only 1 of which is relevant and another 2 come from Wikipedia. His name with his publication gets a single hit. The Alexa rank of the website for the magazine is too low to register. The publication name gets about 380 useful Googles (i.e. those exclusing repetitive mentions). Whichever way you spin those numbers, he's non-notable (and so is the publication). -Splash 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, columnist for magazine with twice as many "useful googles" as wikipedia. Kappa 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless the magazine can be proven to be something besides a rag designed to sell DVDs. Paul Klenk 05:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per Drew Karmafist 16:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per nominator. FCYTravis 19:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
delete nn person --TimPope 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete KHM03 21:01, 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 DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing it for completeness -Splash 01:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:04:34, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arielle

I think the reason is obvious. realwingus 00:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. — Trisk 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Elfguy 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy tagged. It doesn't need to clutter VFD. --Tito xd 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Awww! Don't expunge Arielle! Roodog2k 02:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 02:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This is already on BJAODN-- if that counts as a "transwiki" it's speedy-approved. Ashibaka (tock) 02:50, 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 as duplicate content with wiktionary. --11:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thwack

Delete. Moved to wiktionary. No potential to ever be encyclopedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep link to Wiktionary, delete other content — page has already been replaced by a link. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non encyclopaedic. --Cactus.man 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I put this on VFD because of the note generated by the Transwikied to Wiktionary template: The final disposition of the article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined. It may be redirected, it may go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition and remain on the Wikipedia. If none of these tasks have been performed, please do so. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
move as per *drew's suggestion. __earth 04:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Comment again: It was moved to Wiktionary on 2005-05-20. At this point, the article needs to be (1) redirected, (2) expanded, or (3) deleted. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R adiant _>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "monteux west llc"

Looks like cleverly disguised vanity. You be the judge. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Speculation at best...all very hush hush, better delete it. Rx StrangeLove 19:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Borderline nonsense. Spam for a site with no Alexa ranking. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete for shadiness and possible hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 11:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Another VfD that, like many from 20 August, seems to have attracted very little discussion. Relisting in accordance with administrator's guidelines. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Has already had a valid, unanimous VfD. Get on with it, and delete it. -Splash 00:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm following "When in doubt, don't delete", and note that nobody else had closed it yet although it's been past its lag time for over two days. Do feel free to close it if you are certain that this is a consensus. I have no opinion either way on the article, I haven't looked at it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is fair enough, but those three voters are all established enough for me to be certain that this is a consensus. If I had a delete button, I would exercise it. -Splash 01:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  - We don't do vote counts, really. Three or four people who agree about something doesn't really tell me much. More people coming along and agreeing, well that makes me more confident. And of course all the other administrators who looked at that day's listings before me had a chance to declare a consensus but they passed it over and move on to close other discussions. I'm pretty sure we can close now, but I prefer to let someone else do that. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too "low-profile" to be verified. URL in article does not lead to this supposed bank. Thatdog 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Elfguy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not verifiable. -- DS1953 01:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dag Nabbit! Vanity! Roodog2k 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. *drew 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete, non-notable, vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per Splash --TimPope 08:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cakeplow

Seems like spam, no value as encyclopedia entry, just promoting the linked sites Trisk 00:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone wants to completely rewrite it and show why its notable. Elfguy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, at best. -- DS1953 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 02:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dicdef Amren ^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete and outright nonsense-vandalism. Block the author. Paul Klenk 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Cdyson37 14:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense. Nothing but an attempt at blog self promotion. --Cactus.man 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - seems to be a non-famous neologism --Mysidia (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete nn __earth 04:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just stupid. ral 315 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, and Tony should stop making a WP:POINT by relisting items that obviously have consensus to delete. R adiant _>|< 08:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Batz

Non-notable remixer who is "set out to conquer the world". 28 unique Google hits for this name. Zoe 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Time to Delete Antonio Little cute meawww Pink Cattish Dog Martin 9:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per zoe. Dottore So 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn/vanity/advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not quite sure how WP:MUSIC should be applied to live DJs, but it would seem this one does not meet the bar of notability set by that policy. Thatdog 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Elfguy 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, going by unique google hits he's 1/7 as notable as wikipedia. (just kidding about the keep) Kappa 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Depending on which admin closes this VfD, your "just kidding" might not be considered sufficient evidence™ that you weren't actually voting "keep"... Nandesuka 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable non-entity. Paul Klenk 05:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:47:26, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:20:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R adiant _>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shillian

No hits on Google for this or the faith it claims to descend from. As such, violates WP:NOR. Delete. Alphax ^τεχ 07:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unable to verify any of it. Probably a hoax. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above Dottore So 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 11:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting, yet another in a perplexingly large number of 20 August VfDs that attracted hardly any discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Usually, that is because Wikipedians believe they are slum-dunk deletes. My vote? Delete. --Tito xd 01:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Usually. Usually isn't enough. No deletion without consensus. No deletion if there is doubt. These are the principles which we try to embody. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

merge if this is some sci-fi/fantasy fancruft. Else DELETERoodog2k 02:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax/fancruft. *drew 02:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Impossible to verify. Amren ^(talk) 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Paul Klenk 04:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The biggest clue is that no ethnic group or nationality -- or even a geographical place -- is mentioned. Google did hit the name "BA Lorian," who I would suspect is not expecting to be a religion. --KJPurscell 06:02, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll move to the correct capitals. -Splash 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal friesland foods

Unknown exactly what this is. Doesn't show up in Google. Wikipedianinthehouse 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand/Cleanup. Many (16,300) entries found on Google. Some relevant. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I rewrote the article from scratch and removed references to two individuals which did not seem relevant. After the Vfd is over, this article should be moved to Royal Friesland Foods (correct capitalization). -- DS1953 01:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
keep Taste the Flavour yourselves: http://www.fcdf.com/ Roodog2k 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. *drew 02:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep 16k hits in google. Elfguy 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep DS1953's rewrite and move to Royal Friesland Foods. Notable company with 18000 employees. Capitalistroadster 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable company. Amren ^(talk) 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep but properly capitalize. Paul Klenk 04:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Have added more references and paragraph about Royal status and name change in 2004. No change in vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep a real company. __earth 04:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vaishnava Theology

Delete - Neologism 63.125.67.40 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Vishnu if Notable Roodog2k 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I quickly found two college courses[1] [2] and plenty of other relevant hits. Kappa 02:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. *drew 02:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems notable. Elfguy 03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Paul Klenk 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Vaishnavism. Author could have searched wikipedia before creating a new article. Manik Raina 13:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. User:Siyavash Siyavash

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoned Cognition

Delete — just your less-popular-than-most-things webcomic. Alexa rank about 2,450,000th, about 100 Google hits, most of which are presumably advertising and no indication of generating any particular attention. -Splash 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I got 15,000 when I tried it: [3]--Fallout boy 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ditto on the Lex Test ---> Traffic Rank for reasonedcognition.com: 2,468,708. Roodog2k 02:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
keep, 32,100 google hits. Kappa 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be improved and sources provided. Elfguy 03:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Paul Klenk 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete NOT a link repository. Friday (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This article's deletion page is found at Votes for deletion, not Pages for deletion. Paul Klenk 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Groeck 00:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

keep, I'd like to humbly submit that while this is not an extremely popular webcomic, it is none the less almost unique in it's catagory of being a webcomic that purports to educate it's readers. As such, it is not "just your less-popular-than-most-things" webcomic. I would be willing to link and keep updated an index of questions answered, making the page a better resource. - author, Ryan Kolter

keep, a very popular comic on the server. Article just needs to be expanded. --Fallout boy 04:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I edited the page, including adding the index of questions that have been answered, that I offered to do earlier. - author, Ryan Kolter

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

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing this for completeness. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 01:54:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 in new form, remove copyvio from history.

[edit] Tokpela

It appears to be a copyvio, and it should be marked as a requested article. Delete. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:28, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)}This was listed again on August 28th, 2005, but was already listed. So here, it is re-listed.

Copyvio is what {{copyvio}} tags are for. Kappa 02:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment - copyright violation. Content taken from [4]. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve I also saw the copyright violation, but it does seem to be a real Hopi legend... Brendan OShea 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
List as copyvio or delete. If a new article is written, this copyvio should be removed from the history. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MGM. Paul Klenk 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I have removed the copy-vio and marked as a stub however I'm not sure how procedure for copy-vio goes, does this article first need to be deleted to get rid of the copy-vio in the history then be re-created or can the previous edits simply be deleted? Lochaber 10:11, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (translations)

I recently listed the article List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages for deletion, and this article was to be merged with that one. It is a pointless list of all the foreign language chapter titles in HP book one. It is useless in an English encyclopedia, as it has almost no English in the entire article, and it should be deleted. Brendan OShea 04:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Brendan.
Delete how can this be useful or interesting? Cdyson37 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've seen a site that lists translations of character names, so it's reasonable to assume they also exist for chapter names. If anyone can find them, put a link in Harry Potter to avoid recreation of such stuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
delete. __earth 04:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, nor needed. ral 315 17:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esquivalience

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk • contribs)

And apparently a made-up one at that? Delete. Friday (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Can't this be speedied? Delete. --Blackcap | talk 21:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nonsense. feydey 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Might be worth redirecting to Nihilartikel and adding a note there, since it is one... Shimgray 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've added an entry on "Esquivalience" to Nihilartikel, so redirect. Shimgray 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  - God, I hadn't realized that it actually existed. So that it's here for everyone to see, this is what's said on Nihilartikel:

"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."

I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. --Blackcap | talk 22:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk • contribs)

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

- Actually, I think it would be best just to make an "other cases" section on the Nihilarikel article and add in both examples from the Esq. article. I'm changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel Wesman83 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Google. Paul Klenk 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting and notable. Thatdog 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- encyclopedic, notable, interesting... --Mysidia (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as interesting, wellwritten article. I wonder what Wkipedia's equivalent is :>)Capitalistroadster 04:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's a Nihilartikel. We have a page full of examples; Wikipedia's had at least two known cases added by users, those being San Serriffe and Uqbar. Both are now corrected. There's also a lot of cases of people adding fictional articles deliberately as "tests", which is strongly discouraged; keep an eye on VfD and you see a few. Shimgray 14:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it's an interesting topic Actually, Redirect to Nihilartikel Halo 10:47, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gamer Unlimited

Non-notable forum, no alexa rank. Flowerparty ^talk 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Eventually, every single person in the world will have their own personal internet fan forum. Nandesuka 05:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice. Paul Klenk 05:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete too small to be notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete ARE YOU A GAMER? Nevermind, nn! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Public internet forum with 169 members? Need I say more? --Mysidia (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no Alexa rank + 169 members = forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 22:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete __earth 04:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete Deleting this would be so stupid, I can't believe someone would make such a stupid poll.Pardon?, 22:40, 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--Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Psychedelic World of the Vanishing Cucumbers

Initially this was marked as a speedy. I deleted it, but decided to restore it so that some discussion can take place on its notability. I don't think this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia however. HappyCamper 04:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. You really have to ask whether this is notable? Paul Klenk 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've actually heard of them. But it's obviously a speedy for me too at the moment. --HappyCamper 05:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't appear to be a speedy though. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Alright, let's keep this page and let it pass through vfd then. Thanks for the feedback. --HappyCamper 05:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, current version is nothing more than vanity. Since you heard of them, HC. Do you know if they clear any WP:MUSIC criteria? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
delete nn __earth 04:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NASCAR Nation

Non notable just because its on TV doesn't mean it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Wait a few years for this show to develop into something first. As it is now this show is nothing worth having in here.TheDeletator 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Show has been on for years, and is one of the most popular shows on SPEED Channel. Just because The Deletator does not watch it doesn't mean the show is not worth being here. It just needs expanding. Wikipedianinthehouse 04:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable TV show. Nandesuka 05:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Any long-running show that airs four nights a week on a widely-available channel should be considered notable. Thatdog 05:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep There's no reason to make this ncyclopedia into a place of censorship--Agricluture 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Pls note this user was banned 2 minutes after this post for impersonation.TheDeletator 05:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable television program. Capitalistroadster 11:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Even I have heard of this and I explicitly try to forget everything related to NASCAR. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's horribly US centric, as it doesn't mention any foreign channels it's shown on, but I'd have to agree with Wikipedianinthehouse. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. JUST NEEDS EXPANSION.Imdaking 20:11:22, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Comment It's a TV Show? I always thought this was where Nascar Dads got their passports from... Karmafist 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and cleanup. ral 315 17:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 08:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G-Unot

Non notable group, organization, whatever. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. This is not an issue of The Source magazine online as it were. Fancruft for idiots.TheDeletator (talk • contribs)

Delete. Article about a private feud ("movement"?) in the hip-hop community; trifling and insignificant. Paul Klenk 05:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge to an appropriate destination (perhaps The Game). At the least, it is part of a notable hip-hop feud. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Delete unless notability further established. R adiant _>|< 08:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notability established in the first sentence. If this nomination is a troll, good work, LOL Kappa 11:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Enough said. The possiblity of addressing G-Unit and The Game in a detailed fashion should be accompanied with this article. The person who started this should get some support. Even though its opinion, it's an article. LILVOKA 12:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, It is not a private feud, and/ or insignificant. Its something that will make history.Imdaking

Just noticed that Imdaking is the author of that article.--inks 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Barneyboo 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep does exist, and is well known among the urban community and beyond.
Keep well known to hip hop fans, recieves media attention on Urban stations --Tjss at 17:45 p.m. (Seattle time) on 8/29

Osu8907 03:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This was major news here. Everyone was talking about it at my school, a historically black college. Probably the most notable feud in hip hop in the last five years. --Sketchee 02:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: well-known beef between the current hip-hop giants, an event of significance in hip-hop history.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prison Break

Wikipedia is not a predictor of future events nor it is a volume of Tv Guide. This show cannot be notable for it doesn't exist yet. Give it a few years to achieve some prominence then post it. Non encyclopedic, Fancruft.TheDeletator (talk • contribs)

Keep. The show exists, and is premiering this coming Monday. Wikipedia has entries on many current TV shows, prominent and otherwise, as well as bands, movies, books, etc. which may not have achieved classic status yet. No reason to pick on this one.Bjones
Keep. Prime-time major network shows are notable. Thatdog 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and it's getting harder to assume good faith. You really should be more subtle in your satire, nominator. Nandesuka 05:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, reluctantly; but if individual episodes start appearing one day with their own articles, I will vote to merge or delete them. Paul Klenk 05:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Thatdog; I would have understood a VfD of the original version [5], created by a suspected sockpuppet of Maoririder, but the rewritten version is good. CanadianCaesar 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The basic outline of an extensively advertised TV show on a major network is not fancruft.-LtNOWIS 06:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is quite notable, and this nomination seems a bit trollish Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per announcement, right?.. Renominate if the series is cancelled before it premieres tomorrow, eh? --Mysidia (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very notable. Amren ^(talk) 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, in fact, you can see the first 4 minutes of the show on Yahoo! TV. Is that enough proof that the show exists? ral 315 17:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's starting tonight and its part of Fox's lineup and we shouldn't delete it. Heymypeeps
Keep. The show has appeared in major newspapers nationwide (and in other countries where it airs, ie Canada), the show is directed by a major Hollywood director (Rush Hour, X-Men 3), and shows exist long before they air. There is something called production and pre-production. Know what your talking about before posting vfds or you look a little (?) silly. --Sketchee 01:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Debut tonight. Real show. --Arbiteroftruth 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is a good place for both "serious" articles as well as pop culture. --jchardt 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I thought it was rather entertaining. Rentastrawberry 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable show. Not fancruft. Jacoplane 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep.Not Fancruft.Imdaking 00:18:17, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
Keep. I'm watching it now and it is worthy to be on Wiki. Assuming good faith goes a long way and needs patience.Mrja84 21:57:12, 2005-09-01 (ESDT)
Keep.At what point did Wikipedia become an Encyclopedia of prominent events? I thought the idea of having a huge encyclopedia that anyone can add to was to create a compendium of as much knowledge as possible. Its not like someone made up an entry for a show that isn't real. This is a real thing and even if it was only on the air for one episode, that's enough. What difference does it make if there's an entry for a show that you don't think is good enough? Don't read it. However, Prison Break is airing as we speak, and therefore can be counted among all the things that have ever occured and ever been created by man.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 10:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MediatoolsEC

This is advertising. When you click on the first external link, you find that the wiki article is a slightly modified version of some paragraphs on the company homepage. KJPurscell 16:09, 27 August 2005 UT.

Delete advertising --IByte 16:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Paul Klenk 06:14, 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 Keep. Even discounting the author (too few edits), there is no consensus to delete. There seems to be no good reason to discount the vote by longtime anonymous editor 195.92.168.174 (talk • contribs). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYSOP

Non-notable. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 05:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Program has been running 16 years. Will add more info shortly.--Okieman1200 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep reluctantly. A bit vain/self-promotional/non-notable, but it sounds real enough. Paul Klenk 06:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. -PlainSight 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, the article needs some serious work.--195.92.168.174 02:36, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly apple club

A high school club with one Google hit. Zoe 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is a legitimate article. It does not violate any current wiki policy according to WP:NOT. Additionally, there is no current wiki policy on subject importance, which many here have discussed. See Wikipedia:Importance.--lovedmc12 07:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. "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." --TheMidnighters 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: lovedmc12 plucks people up. He plucks them right in the steiner. That's all I aba sait. I mean aba sait, aba stein. Big J double T 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Aba Steining Sait. That's all I have to say. Johnathan Taylor Thomas 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep The Silly Apple Club has brought joy to all those who participate in it. To delete it would ruin the lives of many good people. We must press on in the memoriy of Silly the Kid. Seriously though, the Silly Apple Club rocks! If you join it you will see...--Matt 13:30 8/28/05

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

- Delete! We get to ruin lives, gentlemen! Press on with this unparallelled opportunity! That and the article is much too silly to live. --Agamemnon2 06:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep As per above - Chris 13:37 8-28-05

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So what? - Chris 2:06 8-29-05

User's first heckensteiner. J dub (you know who) 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep The Silly Apple Club is the pinacle of awesomeness. This page has great potential. No need to delete.--67.114.44.188 20:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this club has quite a cult following, and a website with examples of videos is in the works sillythekid (author)
NOTE: The above "keep" vote is an anonymous and unsigned vote by the author. Paul Klenk
Delete. Utter nonsense. Paul Klenk 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Such a cult following that they are barely a blip on the Internet. Zoe 06:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above Dottore So 06:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable schoolcruft. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
comment Silliness is in the stein of the beholer. How can someone want to delete the greatest thing ever invented? - Jason Bollashotcaller20inchblades 13:43 8/28/05

Creator of the article, only edits are here and at the article itself. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. --Wwwwolf 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- And stick this discussion to "Wikipedia's most colorful VfDs", too. --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From four to over 50,000 members worldwide almost overnight, now we are getting into silly, and it appears the drawers been opened already. Alf 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep if wikipedia wants to remain an oasis of free exchange on the internet, we must allow entries like this to exist. This is a legitimate article, despite it's extreme exaggeration. If wikipedia does not allow silliness to exist, who will? User:sillythekidskid 22:13, 28 August 2005

Comment: Rules aside, say this encylopedia lasts and expands for the next thirty years, how long do you think it will take to sort through all the silliness to get to some encyclopedic fact? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, when I reference this wiki I expect to find and be informed of what I'm looking for. Say every small club, shop, website, film, book and building got in - theres a discussion about roads going on now, how many roads are there? I hope this puts the peeps and puppets here in the right perspective, anyone? Alf 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

More important than the amount of roads is the amount of roads a man must walk down, methinks.

Comment:Are you concerned about having to flip through too many pages? Will the hard-bound book of "wikipedia" become too cumbersome to carry around? As long as a page is relevant and factual, there is no reason to exclude it because of some "encyclopaedic standard," which is not strictly defined in any wiki policy.--lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete because Wikipedia is not "an oasis of free exchange on the internet." It is an encyclopedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
comment It may be an encyclopedia, but the only redeeming quality to Wikipedia that distinguishes it from more reputable encyclopedias is the fact that it is created by regular people, and has a relatively informal tone. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously.steiner1000 03:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Original comment by User:66.126.157.103, who has voted several times in this VFD, but later signed by a sock account. --TheMidnighters 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per sockpuppets. Sdedeo 00:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN and Nonsense. --Camw 01:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit.-- sillythekid 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you learn to use Special:Contributions properly by next week! (Was not Camw's first edit, in case it wasn't obvious.) --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per most every delete vote above. FreplySpang (talk) 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete The author showed up on a forum that I frequent, asking the regular forumites to vote for it's permanence. I don't think that some high school kid's hobby deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Comment: I assume that you are referring to the numerous posts on the PSM forum, which were unsolicited posts not made by this article's author. The Silly Apple Club is not a hobby; it's a movement. sillythekidskid

Comment In response to the above comment I would just like to say that me and my associates who work on another site also like to think of our site as a movement. But considering the staggering number of "movements" lately, ours has gotten lost in the quagmire of "movements." The moral here is that we don't go making articles on our own obscure little site, so why should you?
Comment one could just as easily ask, because these people do go around making articles about obscure subjects, why shouldn't you?
delete nn. __earth 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per everyone else on the page. --PatadyBag 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, and of course socks. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, and to tick off the socks. MysteryDog 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and note that this is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus of the community. Everyone heading over from the "Silly Apple Club" to try and get the article kept, your votes will be summarily disregarded- you're not automatically part of the community if you come here to vote, even if you register accounts. ral 315 17:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers." Summarily disregarded? I sure hope not. --lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn, etc. Impressive show of sockpuppetry, though.

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

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

The result of the debate was ~~delete.~~ No consensus - keep. (See below for details) --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes by established users:
- Keep: 3 - inks, Robin Patterson, Nandesuka
- Delete: 5 - KJPurscell, Aranda56, Lucky 6.9, fvw, Ziggurat

Renaming and disambiguation:
- Elizabeth Joan Shaw or appropriate variant, plus disambiguation - 132.205.3.20, Allegrorondo, Lucky 6.9, inks, 203.173.189.162, Robin Patterson, Grutness, Crocos

Votes by the following users were discounted, primarily because of the low number of edit counts associated with them:
- samf-nz, Nambio, Heyzoos, Crocos, Merstiner

The percentage of delete votes is 75% of 8 votes counted. This is a reasonable margin for deletion, hence delete both articles. In addition, since the article has been deleted, there is no need for the disambiguation. The suggestions for disambiguation here may be used as a guideline in the future if this article were to be reinstated. --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedian inks was kind enough to double-check the counting, and noticed that Nandesuka's vote was incorrectly attributed as a "delete". This mistake has been corrected, and the numbers above reflect the new changes to the vote count. Of the 8 valid votes cast, 62.5% is for delete. This is marginally below the threshold of around 66% required for deletion, so the article "Liz shaw" will be undeleted and reinstated. "Liz Shaw NZ" contains the same content as "Liz shaw" as stated by 203.173.189.162. A disambiguation page Liz Shaw (disambiguation) will also be made as a result. --HappyCamper 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ

Was first deleted before by me, but subsequently restored by me as well. There is sufficient content in here that probably should not have been speedily deleted, but I suspect this is not a notable subject and worthy of deletion. Would very much like a second opinion. Thanks very much! HappyCamper 05:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) -- 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC): I added the other link to Liz Shaw NZ. Wikipedia shouldn't need two pages on this person? Perhaps I should notify the anonymous IP not to paste two copies of the article in Wikipedia. However, I think the reason why two pages exist is because I deleted one, and the IP created the other, and this sort of went back and forth... --HappyCamper 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: Due to the recent surge of vandalism to Liz shaw, I have protected both pages from being edited during this AfD process. The images used in both articles were deleted because they were not substantiated as material compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think New Zealanders are going to have to make the call on this. Is there a New Zealander project to discuss this on? Zoe 06:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I initially speedied it, but in retrospect it was too rash of a decision. Better to let vfd dialogue take over. I don't know if there is a New Zealander Wikipedian group. --HappyCamper 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There is - one of the more active Country-specific WikiProjects, too, complete with portal. But I digress. FWIW, as a kiwi, I've never heard of her, but that may be just me. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Grutness - seeing as you live in Dunedin, there is a write up about the Liz Shaw phenomenon in a recent Critic issue. Here's a link to the online version, but I imagine you'll have no trouble finding a copy (although it's really not worth the time) :)[6]--inks 10:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Which isn't to say she's an uninteresting character. But one episode? One Idol crash-and-burn? One magazine? (Sigh.) Maybe I should submit all my rejection slips and see if I can get a 'pedia article about me :) --KJPurscell 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Annon Edit; This above point is irrelevant as William Hung has a Wiki entry, for one bad audition he did. And Liz's subsequent publicity led to an invitation to do a porn movie with Ron Jeremy. Liz's publicity, while not on the same scale as William Hung's is still prolific considered New Zealand's size. I support the renaming to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw".

Keep The Liz Shaw Phenomenon is actually quite widespread here in NZ. She is reasonably (in)famous, and has featured on several NZ websites and magazines (including one of the adult variety). With all respect to KJPurscell, she has used her rejection as a springboard to more infamy (the same kind you'd get if you posed with your rejection slips in an erotic fashion). --inks 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Now there's a terrifying image. :) --KJPurscell 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

She sounds more notable than Angelyne. :) Zoe 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

~~No vote yet~~. I'd like to hear from more experienced Kiwi Wikipedians on this issue. On the one hand she seems "notable enough" but on the other hand everything I can find online about her looks like it is sourced from the same group of Internet forums; so it feels like this might just be an attack article by some very tenacious haters. Also, the "links" section on this article is of tragically poor quality, although VfD is not cleanup. Nandesuka 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability has been established to my satisfaction. She's notable. Stupid, but notable. Nandesuka 23:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep I was the one who placed the speedy tag on this but after it was restored I did some research and I found more than 200,000 hits in google but mostly from forums. It needs some HEAVY CLeanup ERASE THat Sex Junk thats why i placed it on speedy on the first place and erase some more of those comments and It could Stay. If Not Delete--Aranda56 02:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Vote Change Socks placed me from Weak Keep to 100 persent Delete --Aranda56 06:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
RENAME to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw" and disambig. Arguably outside of Kiwi-land, Dr. "Liz" Shaw, a character from Doctor Who is more notable. 132.205.3.20 21:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
rename per previous comment - my first thought was "why are they deleting Dr Who characters?". Allegrorondo 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Annon: She is notorious amongst the student and youth pop of NZ but Dr Who would have arguably more world-wide relevance. However this does not mean the New Zealand Liz Shaw is not worth a wiki.

Keep I've just tidied up portions of the page. I believe the article's worthy of retention, since she is now extremely well-known online in NZ and is becoming so in the wider population as well. samf-nz 14:45, 30 August 2005 (NZT)User has less than 10 edits [7]
Delete. I smell socks. Take the above vote, for example. Two edits, both to this page. Naughty sock. I found maybe three relevant Google hits for this individual. I'd say a disambig of the "Liz Shaw" version to the Doctor Who character is a good choice. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*Sniff* Suspicion is character assasination, not proof! :) I would use www.google.co.nz and repeat your search. Disambig, but it should be kept in some form.--inks 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, and clothes pegs for everyone who smells socks. --fvw * 03:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
rename I originally posted this article, and wanted it to go under "Liz_Shaw_NZ" to avoid ambiguation wiht the Dr Who Liz Shaw. Due to an error on my part it was posted to "Liz_shaw" instead, and when HappyCamper deleted it, I reposted it to Liz_Shaw_NZ because I thought that it should go to a vote, rather than speedy deletion. I would be happy for the article to be moved to Liz_Joan_Shaw, or left at Liz_Shaw_NZ with the Liz_shaw entry deleted. Also, I would like to mention that I am none of the people refered to in the article. (posted by 203.173.189.162) --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. In retrospect, this one shouldn't have been speedied which is why I've set up this VfD in the same sentiment you stated above. --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete While she apparently has some notoriety, it's not nearly notable enough for Wikipedia (IMHO as an NZer, of course). One concern is that the Wikipedia article itself is intended as a springboard. I concur with KJPurscell regarding the supposed significance of this subject :) Ziggurat 03:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've lost track of the asterisks, so someone can reformat this if necessary. I've heard of her, despite having read no student mags, hardly any blogs, and very few newspapers in the last 12 months. Eurekster.com search engine has not heard of her (and has only one entry on the fictional one). She's not the best advertisement for New Zealand, but there's enough public knowledge of her to keep the article in WP, preferably with a properly styled page name such as "Liz Shaw, New Zealand". I think she is more encyclopaedic than US college football coach Paul Hines, for example (nothing personal, Paul and friends!). Robin Patterson 05:59:17, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Unless she's suddenly become a town, that should be Liz Shaw (New Zealand), Robin! I'd agree with making Liz Shaw a dab page though. The good doctor's companion (the first one with the Pertwee Doctor, IIRC) is well known here too. Grutness...wha? 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For all those in NZ who are interested, Liz is appearing on 20/20 in relation to the porn shoot she did. It airs this thursday (Sept 1), 9:30pm, TV2 (posted by 203.173.189.162) --

KEEP She is well known in NZ, frequencting virtually every NZ internet forum, and being in numerous media publications.--Nambio 04:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC) User has less than 10 edits. Started editing today.

Keep I have nothing to add to this discussion other than I think the page should stay, for future reference for parents, who always need material to scare their children into behaving. Internet bogeywoman? --Heyzoos

Please keep There is nothing defaming or libellious, and this is a topic interesting and relevant to many New Zealanders. Everything quoted in the article was verifiable, sources were cited, and was a fair and neutral representation.

In addition this topic is also relevant to anyone interested in the effects of popular media on young adults. The "Liz Shaw" phenomenon is a (IMO) facinating look at how far some people will go to get noticed - whether through fame or infamy.

I support namming the topic as Liz Shaw NZ or Liz Shaw (New Zealand) as she is not known as Elizabeth Joan Shaw - as well as a dab page from Liz Shaw to the correct pages for both the "Liz Shaws. I suppose that if the topic WAS to be renamed Elizabeth Joan Shaw that could be handled through a Liz Shaw dab page also - would that mean that the current Liz Shaw page is renamed to Liz Shaw (Dr Who) or similar? Maybe. A topic merge of both the Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ entries is an excellent idea.

It's funny how despite having done a few Wikipedia entries and updates that it's a deletion that would actually prompt me to create an account... ;-)

--Crocos 12:10:06, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

KEEP She is a well known person in New Zealand, with her appearing in adverts that screen daily, a documentary last week, many discussion forums, and NZ Idol (albeit only in one show). It is important to separate opinions about her and her actions/style/way of life with the fact that she is now an emerging public/well-known figure. Merstiner 12:09, 5 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. Paul August ☎ 03:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Feather

No documentation/No mention on Google. Paul Klenk 06:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Chief name by itself gets only 3 Google hits; add the words white and feather (not even in quotes) and there are zero hits. Paul Klenk

Delete or improve, the only hits bring up someone on the tribal council who was descended form Pawhuska. And his name means white hair not white feather so the name isnt correct in the first place. Jobe6 08:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Move to Pawhuska.He has his own memorial here. shows Thishe is some what notable. Jobe6 09:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

He met with Thomas Jefferson!!! Jobe6 09:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Google [8] seems to show that this chief is notable. (I don't think google counts should be a test for historical figures.) Sdedeo 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Unless this article can be expanded and references provided. At this point it's not even a good stub. -PlainSight 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep , expand and move to Pawhuska. The town of Pawhuska is named after him. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IG Culture

Vanity/bandity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ following cleanup, change vote to Keep SaltyPig 12:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, wikify and improve. Please do a bit of research before accusing an article of vanity and non-notability. There are two IG Culture CDs available on amazon. He gets 737 unique hits on google, including his own page on BBC Radio 1. Are you making a WP:POINT with all of these WP:PFD nominations? Pburka 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Has Allmusic.com article which shows him as an important broken beat artist and producer see [9]. Appears to meet WP:music. Capitalistroadster 17:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per above arguments. Punkmorten 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I have cleaned up this article. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 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. We have a close situation here (4 delete, 1 merge, 1 redirect), the entire content of the article is ""Chi-Chi" is a character from Scarface played by Angel Salazar. He is the short guy in the gang." Now, the Scarface itself is a disambiguation page, and so merging and redirecting would need to be to one of the actual movie articles, Scarface (1932 film) or Scarface (1983 film). Unfortunately, the article here does not say which one the character appears in. There is very little content here, and it is not easy to merge this with either of those articles anyway. With no good bearing of where or how to merge this, I will call this a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chi-Chi (Scarface)

One character in the movie -- more Wiki brah clean up. Paul Klenk 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Author actually created a template to categorize Scarface-trivia. Paul Klenk
Delete SaltyPig 12:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Scarface. Pburka 15:39, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Minor character, expand Scarface if necessary. --12.42.48.204 15:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
redirect to scarface. __earth 04:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
'Delete Possibly incorporate in Scarface. --Meiers Twins 14:59, 5 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. Paul August ☎ 03:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sporting teams eponymous to automobile-related topics

Arcane/non-notable "list"-oriented article. Paul Klenk 06:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete and salt the earth. Zoe 06:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
'Delete and per above, carthago delenda est! Dottore So 07:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These bizarre lists coming in from the same three users are really starting to steam me. - Lucky 6.9 07:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Absurdity. --Finbarr Saunders 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Other lists are rather trivial and are kept. Why not this one? --SuperDude 18:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page. - Lucky 6.9 20:03, 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 KEEP. But I'll take the move to no-middle-name advice. -Splash 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's already done. -Splash 01:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Joel Hotz

Vanity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 06:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep I have no problem with this article, it's about Kenny of Kenny vs. Spenny and (I now know) other film works. Alf 06:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep implies that you think the nomination has been made in bad faith. Zoe 07:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - I didn't intend to imply anything, the guy is really quite famous, obviously not vanity and definitely notbale, if that means the nom was bad faith, it stands then. Alf 10:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - the importance of the subject appears to be explained in the article, currently. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Normally I would say that the star of a popular TV show is notable. Paul Klenk, are you claiming otherwise? Is there some reason this isn't true? Until a better explanation comes along, Keep. Nandesuka 12:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I suspect this is "non-notable" in the sense of "well, I've never heard of them." Unless it's non-notable in the sense of "different rules for Canadians". Keep, though admittedly it needs some grammar cleanup. Should also be titled Kenny Hotz, not Kenneth Joel Hotz, per "most common name" rules. Bearcat 07:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and possibly rename as per Bearcat. Hall Monitor 22:52, 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.

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

The result of the debate was userfy.

[edit] Marshall Sachs

Hoax page about his blog and his love of porn. Paul Klenk 06:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

SPEEDY delete this nonsense. Dottore So 07:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, should be speedy delete.
Comment I have suggested the intial editor comments here. Alf 10:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I userfied it before I noticed it was under VfD. If he moves it back into the main namespace we can re-open this. -- RHaworth 11:57:27, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzroy Tavern

Non-notable pub; claims it used to be famous and now intellectuals hang out there. Paul Klenk 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep, although I'd like a list of what intellectuals hung out there, the fact that it gave its name to a district of London gives it a slight notability. Zoe 06:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC) Having read the Dottore's comments below, I change my vote to delete, nn tavern. Zoe 07:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, that's a good reason to merge this to an article about the district itself -- providing, of course, the district itself is in fact notable. Paul Klenk

Keep; I intend to develop this article further. Sjc 07:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete The pub did NOT give rise to the name of the neighbourhood; the assertion is false! The linked article Fitzrovia even says as much. Dottore So 07:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
A lot of Google hits, difficult to find the relevant ones. Dylan Thomas and George Orwell used to be there, according to this page. Keep, iff more can be made of this connection. Uppland 07:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It didn't give rise to the name of Fitzrovia, but it was frequented by Dylan Thomas, Augustus John, and George Orwell. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Also seems [zoe] had lunch there. Weak keep Dottore So 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Damn, that London trip is all a blur. :) Zoe 07:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep if expanded. Has the basis for an interesting article. Cnwb 07:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I was going to recommend deletion, but it's starting to look interesting. (And how come I've never come across this place before???!! I spent much of the early 1980s hanging around the Tottenham Court Road area.) --Finbarr Saunders 08:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but move to Fitzroy Tavern (London). There must be hundreds of Fitzroy Taverns (my local is a Fitzroy Tavern - on the other side of the planet from this one!) Grutness...wha? 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's probably the only famous one, so no need to disambiguate unless and until necessary. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
We have the Eagle and Child, so we might actually keep this one. Pilatus 10:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep on it's stomping grounds of.. merits. (Ignore my Cambridge bias here). Alf 10:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but a little more information in the article would be welcome before this process closes. --Bhadani 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as it does have significant literary connections. It's a nice pub, and this looks like a good excuse for a visit later in the week... Sliggy 20:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've made a few changes. CalJW 21:49, 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 keep, no consensus on where to move it. It's apparent to me that this is still an ongoing discussion, with some editors making conflicting suggestions at different times in the discussion. Please arrive at a consensus on what this article should be called and move it there. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pilot Episode

Move content to Are You Being Served; very poor choice for an article title. Paul Klenk 06:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, every tv show that has ever existed is getting to have an article on every episode ever created or thought of. Keep, but rename to The Pilot Episode (Are You Being Served?), and delete the redirect. Zoe 07:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it should be at Pilot episode (Are You Being Served?), in accordance with Wikipedia style, assuming it's not a title (the article is unclear on this). No vote. --Apostrophe 07:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  - That's the problem. If the title of the episode is "The Pilot Episdoe", then we have to include the "The". Like every episode of Friends was "The one about ...". Zoe 07:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agree, it would be less clumsy to relocate the text directly into the show's main page, but the problem is that it then eliminates the choice to view the info, if one wishes not to see spoiler or plot details. Markt3 8/28/05

sadly, Zoe is correct. Dottore So 07:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename as per Zoe --Mysidia (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep (and, of course, rename) - if there is a bit more content. --Finbarr Saunders 10:00(ish), 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to whichever name is deemed most correct. Alf 11:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Note on my DVD set, it's just called "Pilot". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- How about if we call it Are You Being Served? pilot episode? Zoe 20:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to The Pilot Episode (Are You Being Served?)--195.92.168.174 02:40, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NYU residence halls

Exhaustively trifling, non-notable. Merge to NYU article. Paul Klenk 06:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge per nom --Mysidia (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment NYU article is already 44k, would this make a merge problematic?Alf 11:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Article is named improperly. Should be New York University residence halls. --Ichabod 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to New York University - the size of the target article shouldn't be a problem, because really only the first paragraph of this is encyclopedic. The exhaustive list of the halls themself is simply not needed, and is probably just copied from an NYU site somewhere. CDC (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Numerous universities have separate articles about their residential housing, and I'm sure there is encyclopedic information to be found for many of the listed halls. Sdedeo 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep separate, minority interest. Kappa 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge While it's true many universities have residence hall pages, the NYU dorms are not "colleges" in the sense of Yale and therefore don't have detailed histories and statistics. They were a better fit on the main page. By the by, I wrote the sections initially, and most of it is pulled from what I remember of being a student at NYU. TommyP 01:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep

- Argument on size: The article is indeed already too long, alumni and presidents have already been outsourced. Many large sites at wikipedia have separate articles on subcategorical content in order to maintain a sizeable format. At Wikipedia, most university-related articles have the following on their main page: information on schools, rankings, size, general campus information, specialities, faculty, history, athletics and sometimes alumni and trivia/lore/traditions. Other, especially campus-related information is mainainted in separate articles, cf.: Harvard Yard, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Watterson Towers, Davenport College

- Argument on content: the article is in my view still encyclopedic, although every university article on this page contains more information than a traditional encyclopedia article. If that was a criterion, we`d have to delete 90 % of all university-related articles. I haven`t found any specific and detailed information on residence halls elsewhere and I believe it should not be included on the main page. However, I believe that this article contains valid information on NYU and should therefore not be deleted. If this article is deleted, may other articles will have to be deleted as well (see above). There are separate lists of university presidents, university museums and what not. So why delete this article ? One could argue that not all information contained therein is encyclopedic style and that for example it is not really important whether an NYU dorm offers washing machines or not - but then change the article, don`t delete it.

Keep but rename per Ichcabod. Cmadler 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename, redirect this to there. Alf 14:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Alf 21:14, 2 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. Paul August ☎ 03:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeysorce

Non-notable website, can't get an alexa ranking, even though Alexa is really a man, 27 unique hits. Zoe 06:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- appears to be a speedy candidate, due to its short length and lack of context --Mysidia (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Agree with above. Dottore So 07:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Alf 11:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Nandesuka 12:34, 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 copyvio --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pia Manalo

Vanity/non-entity whose favorite bread is pita. Paul Klenk 07:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete a copy and paste from here [10] CanadianCaesar 07:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep If copyvio sorted, never watched Barney and Friends, it's a children's tv show right? It's not as copyvio tagged yet. Alf 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now tagged for copyvio. Alf 11:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I prefer baguette. Nandesuka 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio --Mysidia (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Pita? Delete, then. jamesgibbon 20:04, 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 Keep. No consensus. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hacked By Chinese!

Non-notable "meme". Almost every Google hit I get is describing the worm, not using this phrase in other meanings. Zoe 07:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Code Red worm Halo 09:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. --cesarb 17:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Code Red worm. Uttaddmb 19:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. A redirect never even occurred to me when I nominated. That would be a valid choice. Sorry. Zoe 20:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Agreed. Redirect to Code Red worm. InfallibleRoxi 10:22 AM, 29 August, 2005
Weak Keep and expand. Its in the Urban Dictionary Urban Dictionary - Hacked by Chinese content: "A phrase popularized after the Code Red worm appeared with this text in it. Basically nonsense. Code Red originated from China. Often used as an expression, much like pwned by n00bshop, except with less emphasis on the winner being neophyte-esque. - You lose. Hacked by Chinese!" end content I got 464,000 Google hits and while most are about the worm, quite a few are about the phrase.--KillerChihuahua 17:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that UrbanDictionary is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not. Zoe 06:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Kill it. and if that doesn't work, delete. Rather useless. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, being in the urban dictionary is not notable.--nixie 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, It's all good in da hood. Gold Stur 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, This phrase, while not wildly popular, certainly has enough non-code-red-based use to warrent its own article. Nukekubi 14:00, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of Legendia

No mention at IMDb. Paul Klenk 07:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. It's a video game, not a movie. This is clearly stated in the article and verifiable by way of the external link. C'mon! Thatdog 08:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not on List of PlayStation 2 games#T as yet (unless its English name is different as list is 'American names', have added cats and vfg stub, not sure which year it was tho'. Alf 11:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per Thatdog, plus it's already been released in Japan. Nifboy 18:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I cleaned up some of the silly text in the article. --TimPope 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Manakova

Only 111 Google hits; notable only for appearing nude. Paul Klenk 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Why wouldn't a Chess Grandmaster be considered notable? If anything she's more notable than many other grandmasters (almost all of whom have Wikipedia articles) because of her extra magazine publicity. Thatdog 07:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep if other grandmasters have articles. -- Kjkolb 08:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep SaltyPig 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Posing passed pawns. Alf 12:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Chess grandmaster is noteworthy. --Cactus.man 15:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per the above --Mysidia (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nomination is not well thought out. There are only 184 Woman Grandmaster's in the world. Maria Manakova would be encyclopedically notable for her strength as a chess player even without a nude pictorial. Quale 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As per Quale.--Prosfilaes 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's regrettable that the page author considers nudity to be more noteworthy than achieving grandmaster status. We are all capable of nudity. How many of us are GM's?
- Hundreds of people are GMs, and the differences on the chess board, except for the top few, are incomprehensible to most people. A chessplayer posing nude for money is unusual (the article says unique for a female grandmaster, though I wonder how anyone not a full-time researcher with the Kinsey institute could have real evidence for that), and it's something we all can comprehend. The article is yours to edit, but I'm afraid even if you do add a bunch of information on her playing style, most of us will come away with "Russian female grandmaster. Posed nude for Russian magazine Speed. But which one?"--Prosfilaes 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the general consensus. Hall Monitor 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep all GMs, WGMs and national chess champions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 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. Paul August ☎ 03:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smokabong

Appears to be a vanity page. --Mysidia (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Assiduously nn. MCB 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete SaltyPig 12:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have greeted initial editor and suggested they comment here. Alf 12:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Alright, I agree. Mitch (initial editor) 20:22 29 August 2005 (AEST)
Delete. Non-notable, seems to just be an ad to a CafePress store. ral 315 17:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per creators wish, (userfy if he likes!). Alf 14:48, 2 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. Will move it to correct capitals. -Splash 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chips mackinolty

Vanity/Non-notable (Only 260 Google hits) -- one of a gazillion one-time protesters who found his way into a newspaper or two. Paul Klenk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. His artworks have been exhibited at major Australian galleries such as the National Gallery of Australia, and the Australian Centre for Photography. Certainly notable. Cnwb 07:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Kappa 11:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I originally greeted the intial editor to request tagging of the picture now used in this article (it is taken from http://www.nga.gov.au/federation, so may not be a problem in that), they may have gone offline as no reply/action on this yet. I have left a message to inform them of this VfD, pointing them here. Alf 12:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If his work is displayed at the National Gallery of Australia, then he is a significant Australian artist. According to Australians: A History" published in 1987,he was an art dealer in Katherine who played a significant role in the development of Australian art. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

PS After the vote should be moved to Chips Mackinolty. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. 260 non-vanity, non-dupe Google hits for an non-Internet person is pretty good; not only that, the hits are from notable sources and document him as a notable person. Don't just count the Google hits; look at them. --Prosfilaes 21:25, 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 KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK Subs

Band vanity. Paul Klenk 07:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The band is certainly notable. See [11] for their extensive discography, beginning in 1977. Cnwb 07:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yikes, careful with the "band vanity" tag! --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Didn't even have to look this one up. Flowerparty ^talk 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This was previously a very large article that got speedied for copyvio. The recent creation and shortness of the article make the band vanity assumption somewhat understandable, but let's do a little research first next time, m'kay? Thatdog 08:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Ye ghods! Speedy keep. "Band vanity? What the Ð?" I checked two handy encyclopedias of rock music, both of which gave the UK Subs approximately the same amount of text column space as Nine Inch Nails or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So I suppose those are the next two articles to go... Grutness...wha? 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I feel all nostalgic seeing this listed here, definitely notable as part of the UK 70's punk era. 845,000 hits on Google UK --Meiers Twins 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I didn't need to look at the article, (but I did, just to make sure), way notable to us dinosaurs in this neck of the woods. Alf 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable UK punk band from the 1970s. Capitalistroadster 13:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Part of UK punk rock history. --Cactus.man 15:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep as bad-faith nomination. Band vanity? Punkmorten 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

please assume good faith - but certainly keep --Doc (?) 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Emphatic keep. I've seen it all now. jamesgibbon 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Obviously concensus has formed on this VfD. I just wanted to point out that the article does read like NN BV for someone not familiar with the group. Suggest all who are familiar with them expand the article. -PlainSight 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a start on it, but someone who knows more about the band should have a go at extending it further. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep They are a notable punk band.DavidFarmbrough13:14, 01 September 2005 (BST)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Turinui

Vanity/non-entity. Paul Klenk 07:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep (for now). I don't know enough about Rugby to tell if the claims in the article are sufficient for notability or not, but he definitely has a large following according to Google. Hopefully a Rugby fan can weigh in on this one... Thatdog 07:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It has a strong grounds for being kept according to google. Morgan Turinui played for his country in one of most prominant rugby nations. That is worth noting.
Keep. Didn't have to look this one up. Known throughout the rugby playing world, which means he's known to more people for his sport than your average World Series player is for his. Grutness...wha? 09:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Please don't nominate articles just because you have never heard of the subject. It shows a cultural bias. You have shown this with a number of nominations today--Porturology 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've also left a note on Talk:Rugby union, pointing here, for that pages editors' input, certainly not vanity nor non-entity. Alf 12:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - he's an Australian international! That's notable. Article needs a bit of tidying up and I'm not sure about the copywrite status of the image but the artictle should stay. --LemonAndLime 13:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable Australian rugby international. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've seen many articles on more obscure topics than this.GordyB 21:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ditto most of above.--Finbarr Saunders 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong KeepA well known rugby international. Just because America doesn't play rugby doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't be interested.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request-A-Song.com and related pages

This is a blanket nomination for the article along with its armada of redirects, RAS 2002, RAS 2003, RAS 2004, RAS 2005, Best Of Request - Vol. 1 (October 2002 - March 2003), Hollow Earth Productions, Benj Edwards, Jeremy Edwards (musician), and anything else contributed by user:Docarnold; with the exception of explodingdog, which I'm explicitly ignoring.

Spam. And on a professional scale: the article was created on April 14 and a handful of gratuitous links to it were added shortly afterwards. In short, Request-A-Song.com are a band who fail WP:MUSIC, named after a website which fails WP:WEB. Delete all. Flowerparty ^talk 07:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have made intial editor aware of VfD and pointed them here, no vote as yet, will wade through each individually. Alf 12:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete all - self-promotion of someone's pet project - releases on their own "label", lots of MP3s, and no evidence of notability. CDC (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, vanity, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, vanity, no Alexa rank. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete __earth 04:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. ral 315 17:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. BodyTag 10:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per Flowerparty. explodingalf 15:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The article was neither spam nor vanity. Read my comments on the discussion page. docarnold 02:42 14 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some simple sentences in lugisu (lumasaaba)

Wikipedia is not a foreign language lexicon. Zoe 08:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Dottore So 08:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I already VfD:ed this once as far as I can remember. I can't find the previous VfD-page, though. Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- You'll find both on the list of Uganda-related deletions. -- Visviva 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge some of it with the article on the language, which seems to be Masaba language. Kappa 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- We don't keep tourist phrase-lists in language articles for fairly obvious reasons (unencylopedic, Wikipedia is not a usage guide, useless for linguistic comparison, etc). If someone decides to include it, it won't stay in the article for long. We have a pseudo-article dedicated for this: list of common phrases in various languages. The basic inclusion policies don't hold seem to hold sway there, so you can add whatever you feel like. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete SaltyPig 12:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy, recreation of deleted content. -- Visviva 10:00, 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 (discounting ballot stuffing). Ingoolemo ^talk 19:23, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Stover

Vanity actor site/purported AOL show got six google hits. Currently is studying acting. Paul Klenk 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article does not allege notability. Zoe 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ^ Drdisque 08:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete SaltyPig 12:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The article most certainly does allege notability. Creator, producer and star of, what is essentially, a television show. It's just broadcast on AOL instead of a conventional network. She appears to have had numerous celebrity guests and filmed on location around the world. If her show were on a conventional network there would be no argument about keeping this article. Pburka 14:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'm a little hestitant, ~~because I can't verify the AOL "show" exists~~, since I'm not on AOL. Also, I reworded the whole article, since it was an exact copy from the web site, which says "All rights reserved". ~~If her website is not a complete hoax~~, it's a reasonable keep (both for her webcast and to a lessor extent as a blogebrity). --rob 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not seeing notability here. The show is not on broadcast, cable, or satellite TV; it's apparently just something you can access on AOL, like a web site or blog, but it's video? I don't think AOL "content" automatically confers notability. MCB 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Tenative delete; I couldn't find her on IMDb...if I knew more about this webcasted teen show on AOL I might change my mind. Everyking 19:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
delete. if we add this, we should also add all existing acting students in the whole world! __earth 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator --nixie 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The nominator's Google hit count of 6 is far less than the 33 uniques I got using her show's exact title (in quotes) or the 133 uniques I got with her first+last name in quotes. I verified that even the 133rd unique hit was about *this* "Jessica Stover" (only a few were about another girl). --rob 06:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - this google argument people toss around all day at wikipedia is ludicrous. nobody knows me, and i have 119 unique hits, 100% of which refer to me (unique name spelling). the article's atrocious, she's not a "blogebrity", and getting google hits is a piece of cake (just like "releasing an album", "hosting a TV show", "acting in a movie", "making a podcast" blah blah). SaltyPig 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The world is full of wannabe-stars and odious blog-celebs. Who'll miss just one. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm hoping that's a typo and you meant "dubious". It's ok to vfd an article because the notability and/or claims made in it are "dubious". But, it's wrong to vfd an article, because you find a certain group of people to be "odious". Many valid wiki articles are of odious people who have done odious things. --rob 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - i doubt "odious" is a typo, and i agree with Agamemnon2. it's not wrong to criticize a page for the subject's odiousness when that trait is not only directly related to a desire to have one's name plastered around (perhaps specifically at wikipedia), but likely forms the sole weak (yet disguised) excuse for inclusion — the subject (or friend, relative, fanatic) wants to have an article here. see fallacy of accident for more on why your example of generally odious people has no merit in this discussion. further, it's mistaken to presume that the terse comments after votes compose a full case. what's going on here is that wikipedia articles are used for original-research publicity (and google priming) rather than for encyclopedic knowledge distribution. that's not obvious to you in this example? SaltyPig 08:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless shown notable. If her claim to fame is an an actress, no IMDB presense severely hurts her case. If her claim to fame is as a blogger, well, that's just silly. Having a blog makes one about as famous as does having a cat. Friday (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I updated the article, and included a few notable names she's had on her show. I think her ability to have extended length (not "assembly line" or "red carpet") interviews with famous people has some significance to this debate. --rob 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete — Nah, ... sorry. :) — RJH 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep definitely notable and has a strong following. Sean Bonner 18:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep as per Pburka. Hall Monitor 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Researched her and she is definitely notable per statements above and more. Feel that some of the delete comments weren't researched or are now moot as the wiki page has been updated with more information. Knowstuff 18:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- if this article stays, i'm gonna create an article about myself and point to jessica stover as evidence that i'm "notable". these vanity pages are trying way too hard, and it shows; nothing there except "became known" claims for a comparative unknown. SaltyPig 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Who's Jessica Strover? Why haven't I heard of this actress? 3 September 2005 (UTC) 67.176.186.22

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

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN - after all sockpuppets ignored. FCYTravis 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brillant

Non-notable outside The Daily WTF forum. Zetawoof 08:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN It has instantly caught on with every programmer I linked to the original entry on The Daily WTF, so I think it merits preserving. Aristotle 02:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quite hilarious, but unfortunately not-notable. Thatdog 08:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 08:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. --Shutranm 12:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I really liked the entry, but it is true that it doesn't seem to mentioned in many places and therefore not really notable. user:Matt.whitby
Keep SaltyPig 12:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN - non-notable, but the article is well-written enough, and the subject entertaining enough, to warrant keeping it for posterity. ~ Irrel
BJAODN Should be preserved for future generations... Cdyson37 14:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN I wrote the original article, so I may be biased. I agree that it is non-notable, but I think it warrants keeping. DZ-Jay 15:11:25, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
Keep for at least three months. This phrase might catch on in wider usage as WTF membership grows and Brillant would then be submitted to Wiki again. User:aikimark
- User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Popular tech talk often enters the more common public domain, where it is often mangled and misrepresented by media who do not understand the origins. Brillant has been very popular, very quickly and stands a high probability wider usage. It is important that such terms have a clear history of the origin of a word to prevent misuse (such as when the press used the word hacker instead of cracker, permanently destroying the original meaning of the term) xepol 17:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. FCYTravis 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Come on... an in-joke on a nn web site, with no other independent existence? MCB 18:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or BJAODN. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and I note that "brillant" has not become "very popular very quickly." FCYTravis 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, in-term for one forum. Zoe 21:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Does come up 486 times on Google though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2005.
- Duplicate vote. Oh dear. --Zetawoof 02:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge as misspelling of "brilliant". Andrew pmk | Talk 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or BJAODN. If this site claims to be a repository of human knowledge, let all 'knowledge' remain as it is. Lithorien 16:51, 28 August 2005 (PST)
- User's second edit. Zoe 04:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - And that matters why, Zoe? It doesn't take a hundred edits to know the rules. Lithorien 22:41, August 28, 2005 (PST)
    - jack maneuver there, zoe. what's the point? SaltyPig 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Noting attempts to stuff the ballotbox, perhaps? --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
        
        Check the IP addresses of the users. Don't try to throw mud in their faces for a small edit count. Lithorien 06:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        Only developers can check IP addresses. But an admin who closes a vote can take into consideration the length of time that a signed in User has been with Wikipedia, and discount votes of those who have no stake in the project. Zoe 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
        
        lithorien's first edit was august 2004. "Noting attempts" and timidly implying guilt that can't be disproved are radically different. SaltyPig 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Trivial. --Calton | Talk 05:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to The Daily WTF. R adiant _>|< 07:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but BJAODN if people want it there. This sounds like an attempt to use Wikipedia to help spread this new usage of a term. WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- As the original author of the article, I can assure you this wasn't the intention -- it was a misunderstanding of the policies about encyclopedic relevance. I do admit it is non-notable, but think it should be kept in BJAODN. DZ-Jay 14:56:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Keep or BJAODN. This is a borderline case, and I find keeping it more prudent for now, after all it isn't causing much harm. R6144 15:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep: the origin of this sarcastic term is interesting, not to mention rather humorous, and it doesn't hurt anything to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.186.184.75 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 August 2005.
Delete. ral 315 17:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -Sean Curtin 01:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- But that's a disambiguous page, it doesn't contain any content, it'll still need to point somewhere... DZ-Jay 09:36:59, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. The first times it was a BJAODN, but IMHO now it is a new word on its own. 62.14.177.107 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 10:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- If we apply the rule that this term is not notable outside WTF, the same would apply to all the Slashdot articles in Wikipedia, which lots of people use often for understanding jokes made in ./ but otherwise are not known for non Slashdot's readers. Regards 138.100.12.136 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Move to TheDailyWTF. No harm being done. Ytram
Merge to The Daily WTF. If it gains significant usage outside of that forum, then recreate it. htonl 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Move To The Daily WTF - a thing of beauty is a joy forever. --Maurits 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep this has spread rapidly amongst coders i know - vDave420
- Posted by 66.134.25.19, not a registered user.
Keep It is becomming quite the developer catchphrase. 65.240.133.194 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Good write-up. And create The Daily WTF. --2mcm 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Clearly not encylopedic, but amusing and well-written. Possibly merge to The Daily WTF (which would be merited) if someone writes it. --Zootm 10:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Redirect to brilliant. -TNS
- Improperly signed vote by TheNotoriousSkinny. User's first edit. --Zetawoof 07:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to The Daily WTF (of which more should be written), as it's definitely part of the site's culture. It isn't a Bad Joke, and is wayyyy too factual to be very Nonsensical, so I think BJAODN would be a wrong place. --Wwwwolf 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Changing vote:
BJAODN, on the account that TheDailyWTF.com seems to fail WP:WEB, so moving it to an article about it would be pointless because that in turn might get deleted; they have Alexa rank around 47,000 and no apparent way to check how many registered members there are, but I cursorily only found user IDs up to around 2000. Besides, we're not exactly talking of a in-joke-spreading movement that could rival Slashdot =) --Wwwwolf 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, Mayby even KEEP. This term has swept through my my company of over 600 and is used as commonly as PHB. The tribal consensus of who was brillant at my office was quite amazing.
- Unsigned vote by Ded.morris. User's 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 not enough disucssion te establish consensus. I have since listed it at WP:CP. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:29, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Kayserispor

I was alerted to this page by Avalon who wasn't sure what to do with it. It appears to be written entirely in Turkish (or some variant thereof). As such, it is unintelligible to users of this encycloædia. Unless someone can translate it and establish notability, it should be deleted. Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete' Football club apparently, that might warrant a page in, well, English. Dottore So 08:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be copyvio from [12]. Kayserispor plays in the Turkish Premier League, though, so definitely notable Sam Vimes 13:57, 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 MERGE to Shamrock Rovers. Will do. -Splash 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 400_Club

This information should be in the Shamrock Rovers article, not on its own page. Meiers Twins 08:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEPWell known through out Ireland.--Play Brian Moore 14:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Reinstate comment deleted by Fenian Swine : (The entry above is from Fenian Swine who appears to be the original author. --12.42.48.204 16:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)) --12.42.48.204 06:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete The Shamrock Rovers article already references this club. Merge with main article. --Cactus.man 15:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect Point taken, thanks for the advice Pburka. The Shamrock Rovers article already references this club. Merge with main article. --Cactus.man 16:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, or Merge and redirect. (Note that Delete and Merge is invalid unless the closing admin also merges the history, which I understand is a complicated procedure.) Pburka 15:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Shamrock Rovers. --12.42.48.204 16:02, 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 merge and delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:35, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] The Conflict in Palestine

Substantial overlap with existing articles -- Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well then see what can be done to merge with those articles. Raven4x4x 09:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to request a merge, but it seemed to be that should be done by persons with a better knowledge of the topic and extant articles. For instance, I didn't know about Arab-Israeli conflict at all. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reserved likely merge. At least it's well sourced and footed, if we did have an article on this as a single topic, what would it be called?. Alf 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Palestine_(region). Manik Raina 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Palestine_(region) properly talks about the region, not the conflict. We have Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline and probably too many more articles focusing on the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete after salvaging useful and non-duplicating and encyclopedic information into many existing articles. To anon creator: please use search function before creating new articles. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. I think this is some student's essay or something. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete not NPOV, material available elsewhere in the wikipedia. Vonfraginoff 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Certainly do not merge content that is hopelessly NPOV. Delete. Dottore So 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Content covered elsewhere, also too POV. --Heptor 16:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Humus sapiens. Alf 14:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Three articles to merge

The page contains three discreet articles (on Palestine, The West Bank, and The Gaza Strip), each with separate sources and word counts. (Why word counts? Are they copied from something else? If so, I can't find it online.) The material appears factual enough, and thus worth merging into the three articles that have the same names. Veg0matic 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take back my merge vote. Delete. Veg0matic 00:29, 2 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forest cafe

Although I realise that content isn't a reason for deletion, this page has clearly been written by someone employed there. I've been a resident in Edinburgh for nearly 10 years now and I don't think this cafe is anyway near notable enough for inclusion. Leithp 09:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

~~Marginal keep~~. Clearly an ad, but with some trimming the article might serve as a small signpost to an almost notable community center. Collabi 09:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Is a small cafe in Edinburgh (even a not for profit one) notable enough for an encyclopaedia--Porturology 10:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per User:Leithp Pilatus 10:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. i'm regularly amazed by the apparent hesitation on the part of some deletion voters re blatant marketing pages. it's not like a good article can't be written later (after deletion). away with it. there's nothing to save. SaltyPig 12:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Badvertisment. Alf 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Been around for a while but not notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry. --Cactus.man 15:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 15:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I keep hearing nice things about it, but do please delete. Non-notable. Shimgray 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper. -- DS1953 18:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:56, 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 merge and redirect. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:43, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Lopez

More junk from the wacky world of Wiki brah; article about one character in a movie with no point -- probably an excuse to use the word "Juban". Paul Klenk 09:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, major character from major movie. Kappa 11:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Note from Paul Klenk: Kappa and friends, think about the consequences... In the past two days, we have seen articles focusing on 1] one scene from a movie (Chain Saw Scene from Scarface) and 2] one character from a movie (Frank Lopez from Scarface). Both were from a user who, in my opinion, is a hoaxer (if WP has a more poltically correct euphemism for this term, let me know). What would happen if every movie had each character and each scene broken out into separate articles?! What makes such tidbits notable, and where will it stop? These were both trifling articles, of little consequence, and don't add to the sum of human knowledge. If we do in fact want to document films in such exhaustive detail, we need to talk about conventions for titling and organizing these data. Further, this practice is already migrating to reality TV shows, whose characters are no-name wanna-bes trying to break into show business. Some of these shows haven't even aired yet, and (in the case of a modeling show) their characters/actors are getting new articles under their names, with links pointing to chat rooms sponsored by the show. The current view seems to be, "It's on TV, so it's notable." Since when? Prove it. Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.

I think this is covered by Wikipedia is not paper. Incidentally I regard not covering reality TV show contestants as a gross dis-service to the users. Kappa 19:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not toilet paper. Tell me, is there any bit of fictional trivia too trivial for you to claim as "notable" or "major"? --Calton | Talk 04:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This is ludicrous. Heck, covering individual episodes of TV shows is, to me, a waste of valuable resources. Are we not slaves of TV enough without it sticking its septic tentacles down our throats even on the Internet? --Agamemnon2 07:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Covering individual episodes of TV shows makes a neglible impact on wikipedia's resources, and there is no reason to think that people using this information are less likely to donate than anyone else. If you want to avoid the septic tentacles of TV, feel free not to hit that "random article" link. Kappa 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. There is a huge chunk of red text in the middle of my screen. So eye-catching! So...persuasive! Must...vote...delete... Extreme Unction 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Robert Loggia. Alf Capone 13:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge and Redirect Strongly agree with Paul Klenk comments above. --12.42.48.204 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Scarface. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Delete. If it was that important, it seems that the editors working on the Scarface (1983 film) would have worked it into the fairly extensive plot summary. I don't think we need to feel obligated to merge this content into a seemingly well-done article. -- DS1953 18:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notabl. Dunc|☺ 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete (only because a vote to merge and redirect could be counted by some admins as a keep). Denni ☯ 19:11, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Delete, more Wiki brah nonsense. Zoe 21:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - 5th in cast list on IMDb so could be considered notable (within the limits of Scarface) - but not to the extent of having its own article Barneyboo 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 22:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Scarface-cruft, brought to you by the Scarfacecrufter himself, User:Wiki brah. --Calton | Talk 04:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. feydey 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough for an individual article and no need to redirect. Quale 15:56, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sega Genesis Master CD 32X System

Page that is rambling, not-encyclopaedia worthy. Discusses the Sega Genesis with every add-on fitted, which doesn't have a name and I don't see there being a way of making the page useful.

Duplicates content from Sega Genesis, Sega Mega Drive, Sega CD and Sega 32X but can't easily be redirected to any. Halo 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete ramble w/POV SaltyPig 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, all the relevant info in this article is already captured in other Genesis/Megadrive-related articles. Nandesuka 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jaxl | talk 15:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:31, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with all of the above reasons, and also because very few people, if any, have all of those additions to their Genesis, which is truly only what the article concerns. Eric 04:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rolia

This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks. It does not appear to have much encyclopedic potential. Comments from WP:PNT (not votes):

Xrce says: Chinese. Sietse 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- :Looks like an ad for a chat site targeted at Chinese immigrants to Canada. -Adjusting 20:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Paris

This appears to be a vanity page JoanneB 11:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

First off this is not a vanity page. Miss Paris is actually a legitmate actress and local TV personality here in Portland and you have pages for athletes, talk show hosts, models, actors and actress, and even rock stars here on the site. Are they not vanity pages too? If so they don't belong here either and you should delete them immeditely. Or are you picking on her because she hasn't won an Oscar or made over 20 million? As I see it, her space has every right to be here just as much as someone who is famous.

Badgirl 1701

Delete The impression I get from the page is that her acting consists of amateur musicals and access TV. Vanity.--Porturology 12:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Every actor an actress has started somewhere, even access TV. I have watched her over the years and she has grown quite a bit as a performer. Infact if you want to challege the vanity pages. Let's take a look at the pages of Courtney Love and Paris Hilton for example. Are they not vanity pages? I would think so. These two have no talent whatsoever but yet they are listed on here. But hey while you're at it why not delete ever single athlete, actor, dancer, and performer off this site reguardless. I say if you delete her. You have delete all those celebrities as well because they are vanity pages too.

Badgirl 1701

Delete great attempt to disguise non-notability with irrelevant details (e.g., animal house!). wow. SaltyPig 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Like I said. If you are going to get rid of her. You might as well delete all the other celbrity vanity pages too. It's only fair.

It's not our place to judge talent here, as that's an opinion. We go on verifiable facts. I see no mention of her in allmovie. Delete Friday (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable - the rigorous defence of the page by Badgirl 1701 leads me to believe it is possibly vanity as well. By "vanity", we mean pages created by the person in question. Halo 14:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn-bio, vanity. I'm particularly amused by "Alexandra has been a Portland native since 1992". I guess she's only 12 years old! MCB 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete article does not establish notability Sliggy 18:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
While Ms Paris may be notable within the Portland gay and lesbian community, she does not appear to meet the standards of notability outlined in WP:BIO.Delete Capitalistroadster 19:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-made page. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If you look at her so-called "filmography" at http://www.musecube.com/AlexandraParis/about.htm, I can find no record at imdb for any of the movies listed (not even the one with Debbie Rochon), and of the movies listed, she seems to be basically an extra even in those non-notable movies. If we discount her supposed movie career, then all we have is that she's a cable access host. That is not notable whatsoever. Zoe 22:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- hey, i was a cable access host. are you trying to imply that pretty much anybody can be one? in five minutes? well... okay. you're right. SaltyPig 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I wikified this page because the linking format was making me think I was judging this page with insufficient attention to content, but now that I've read Capitalistroadster's comment, I believe that she fails the entertainer's test at WP:Bio not having starring or many supporting (albiet a few) roles in movies with an audience of > 5,000. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would have to question that any movie she has been in has been seen by 5000 people. Zoe 04:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I live in the Portland area; I've never heard of her. Plus, whether or not you think the likes of Courtney Love and Paris Hilton are talented or not; they certainly are notable--being famous is a sufficient condition for notability. Appearing on cable access, isn't. --EngineerScotty 00:20, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Court

Non-notable suburban street Cnwb 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn street Halo 12:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree, delete, nn feydey 12:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 15:44, 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 no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 15:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oilily

POV marketing swill. would be good to have an article on Oilily, but this isn't it. should be thwacked until a real article is attempted. SaltyPig 11:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep with information about the actual store rather than a jumble of obscure and useless data from the store's website Drdisque 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- okay, who's going to do that? i saw about 1 sentence that wasn't marketing dreck. it's not like anything's lost by deleting the page. sometimes i think these votes for deletion are viewed as though it's the last chance for the entire future of an article. the best future for this article might be to zap it so that somebody actually starts it right one day. not jamming on you personally, but i wonder what the value is in leaving up some of these hack pages. the vote for deletion is voting to delete this article, not any article that might be made about the subject later. if you can fill me in, please do. thanks. this general "keep everything possible" flavor i've noticed lately confuses me. it seems to presume that creating a page is difficult, as though we're fortunate that somebody happened by one day and left us these pieces of litter. strange (IMO). SaltyPig 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio tagged n' reported. BTW POV is not a valid reason to delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- re POV, i'm aware of that claim and disagree. SaltyPig 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Its only valid if it is not possible to make the article NPOV for some reason (like List of ethnic stereotypes). In this case its just a company, so it would be fairly easy to rework it from a NPOV Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    - again, i'm aware of that claim, and i disagree. if you'd like to argue it, point me to the correct spot to let fly. i'm shocked by this VfD procedure. horrible! i gather we're not supposed to ramble too much here though. feel free to use my talk page if interested. SaltyPig 22:29, 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. Woohookitty 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stoned Mullet

original research, non-notable, POV, etc. SaltyPig 12:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep It's a real and valid small band. Why make it harder for them by deleting their entry? unsigned by 220.237.177.85 11:48, 28 August 2005
Delete - just because they're real, doesn't mean they're notable Halo 12:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 15:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not really a "small band", more like a "garage band" which uses free webhosting to host their website. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as classic band vanity complete with support hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 23:20, 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. Woohookitty 09:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeem

Delete. Bordering nonsense; a Google search fails to confirm that this has any basis in reality. —Charles O'Rourke 12:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above Cdyson37 14:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probably hoax. Pburka 15:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Gamecruft: Dalaya seems to be from a MMORPG called Winter's Roar, but the article presents this as if it were other than something fictional. --Mysidia (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep You gusy r mean imo LOL

Unsigned vote from User:206.55.145.225, the creator of the article. Pburka 14:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 09:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breast euphemisms

Simply list of slang euphemisms. No real content. JLaTondre 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete (changed from Reserved). And no pictures. It is also now blanked which meant a trawl thourgh history, all this must be here somewhere already, surely, I've not trawled slang so unsure where it would be.

I'm happy with TLE's def here, unless anyone wants to points to a word there we haven't already got that fits "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate". Alf 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

And there's still no pictures.Alf 18:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - It looks as if the article may be unencyclopedic. However, it was blanked because the user who nominated it for Vfd blanked it. I find the blanking and implying it was already blanked to be rather dubious. --Mysidia (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, the blanking was a mistake on my part. I'm more used to CV than VfD. Thanks for correcting that. If you're refering to my comment of "No real content" as "implying it was already blanked" that was not my intent. A list of slang terms has no real content that is suitable for an enclopedia. Real content might be history, a discussion of the language evolution along with sexual morals, etc... JLaTondre 17:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete The fact that it's a list of slang, rather than an entry for a single piece of slang, does not change the fact that it violates WP:NOT Sec. 1.2.3's clear and appropriate prohibition on trying to make articles that are slang or idiom usage guides. For that matter, Sec. 1.2.2 is "No lists of such definitions" in reference to WP:NOT A Dictionary. The Literate Engineer 16:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Body parts slang. Al 16:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

might seem less stupid, if a few of these , were used every so often

Delete. These are not euphemisms, they're slang terms. I also wonder how many of these have any currecy at all and how many were made up for this little project. Denni ☯ 19:20, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure slang. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete like aspirins on an ironing board. ral 315 17:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary? 132.205.3.20 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and possibly merge to body parts slang. -Sean Curtin 01:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish people

Do we really need a page just for Irish people, could it not be included in the Ireland article? Tim 13:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep its quite a long article and part of a category. Djegan 13:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I've left a note on the article's talk page, pointing here, there is quite an edit history and some talk of whether it was a good 'move' from "Irish enthnicity" in the first place and should it merged to elsewhere. Alf 13:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep : This page attempts to define many communities which have roots in thr Irish people and talks about their origin from the original residents of Ireland. Manik Raina 14:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Otherwise shall I go round and make pages for British people, French people, Spanish people, Indian people, Iraqi people etc?!Tim 14:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And two of those exist! Crazy! Tim 14:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment Your quite free to create what you want - by the way their is English people, Scottish people, Welsh people - as for the other peoples this probabily has something to do with wikipedia been work in progress and predominantly English language. Djegan 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Don't forget theres 44m Irish Americans, many of whom are interested in Irish enthnicity, so its a useful article for them. CGorman 14:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. In my opinion, this page is about the people who emigrated from Ireland to other countries since they form an important immigrant group. This page is not about Ireland (the rock in the middle of the sea per se). Are there sizeable french populations outside france ? Then it makes sense to have such a page for those people. Manik Raina 14:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The Ireland article is already too long (42k) for this to be included in it. Demiurge 15:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - re. Demiurge's comment - Pete C ^✍ 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, fershure -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this article is fine. Punkmorten 19:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are more people of Irish descent living outside Ireland than in Ireland. There is 44 million in the US and 6 million in Australia for a start. Article needs more references but it certainly gives us something to work from. Capitalistroadster 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The nationality of the people who now live either in the Republic of Ireland or in Northern Ireland was one of the most contentious issues of the 20th Century. This is an important piece of European history. Rnt20 20:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Category:Ethnic groups of Europe contains hundreds of articles. Please take more care with any future nominations.CalJW 21:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dude... I can nominate anything I wish, its not about taking care, if something doesn't deserve to be there in one persons opinion, its fine for them to nominate it for deletion. The fact I've been massively outnumbered shows the system works, and its not a problem for things to be nominated and then kept. Please take more care with any future patronising comments. Tim 12:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - Just because you can it doesn't mean you should. There are a number of cautions against over hasty nominations in the instructions for this page. If you make a lot of nominations which are overwhelmingly rejected, you will get frustrated and you will have wasted a lot of other peoples' time. Neither of those things will be good. Over time you will become familiar with what type of nominations might succeed. Nominating articles which are certain not to be deleted may be a breach of the policy that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but you are not guilty of that in this instance as you are new. CalJW 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep! How strong? I've managed to show up to vote on this despite having just survived a hurricane, and having neither electricity nor a working telephone. I'm posting this vote telekinetically, by sheer force of will. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep (looks like this is agreeed) --ClemMcGann 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep.Big,important article.--Play Brian Moore 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep The notion of a distinct Irish ethnicity is quite widely accepted; to delete this page would be a disservice to that fact.--TheMcManusBro 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. These articles exist for a number of other nationalities, check out Greeks. I would argue that nationalities are constructs but I recognise that still doesn't stop people believing in them. The present article, though, needs some revising. The Greek article could serve as a model, as as with the Irish, there are substantial numbers of Greeks living outside of Greece and that was always the case. --Damac 09:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Keep - by comparison with other given articles above, this should stay. Alf 15:00, 2 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. -Splash 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaskus

The forum is not famous. A forum should not be listed as an article on wikipedia Kontrovert 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't see why, we should let it stay, all things should be on Wikipedia for then it will become an Encyclopedia of Everything. Tim 13:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 100,000+ members is good enough for me (and WP:WEB). Alf 14:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, badly written. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and leave on cleanup. Alexa rank of 6235. —Cryptic (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and cleanup. --Apostrophe 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - 'not famous' is not a criteria for deletion. Trollderella 09:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:02, 2 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED to Shankar Dayal Sharma. -Splash 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma

Page already exists Shankar Dayal Sharma. Normally we would ask this page to be merged with the target but in this case the page in question has negligibly new information to be worthy of a merge. Hence the vfd. Manik Raina 14:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Shankar Dayal Sharma would surely be the obvious solution? Halo 14:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect speedily. No need for a WP:PFD — be WP:BOLD! Pburka 15:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect is fine by me. Alf 19:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to redirect .. Thanks, Manik Raina 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:35, 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 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Linton Roberson

I'm of two minds. It's all verifiable, I've pulled an extensive edit on the page, but it still has that smell of vanity. I'm not sure if the published work for eros is notable, the e-book isn't a major publication that set the world alight, he's not currently a huge name in comics, and so I bring it here. Steve block talk 14:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - there's really nothing here, just self-publication and "e-books", neither of which indicate an encyclopedic level of success as an author. CDC (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I've left a message on List of cartoonists talk page (which, for some reason is the target of the Cartoonist talk page redirect, {whatever}), pointing here. comment by User:Wiki alf.
Keep - Is the Wiki Comics Project about being completist or being a hall of fame? If being self-published disqualified you from being considered a professional cartoonist, many alternative cartoonists would be disqualified. Self-publishing is very common in comics, and Roberson has published others under his imprint too, and has been working in the field for close to a decade. I would also add that the comics references in Wikipedia are, in general, at present biased heavily toward mainstream comics with far less on alternative creators. Is this an oversight or reflective of a prejudice against non-mainstream cartoonists? Just because he hasn't worked for Marvel or DC doesn't mean he isn't a cartoonist, and incidentally, why has the stub reference been removed? I vote against deletion. gilesgoat talk 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's not the self publishing that excludes Roberson, see my statement above for my reasoning. I removed the stub template because the article is not a stub, it's a fairly decent article given the subject. I don't think he'd need to have worked for Marvel or DC, but I don't think the body of work he has produced at present deems him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Feel free to prove me wrong. I tend to see Wikipedia as falling in between completist and hall of fame. And to be honest, if all you need to be to be a professional cartoonist is a self-published one, then I need to change my job description, having also self published comics. I think the description professional cartoonist means one earns one living at it. And look, if one does the old google test we get 56 hits. That's not huge is it? Steve block talk 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This guy seems notable enough for me, has longevity, and his self-publication is definitely not of the vanity kind. Requiring cartoonists earn a living from cartooning would exclude a very large number of people wiki covers. Sdedeo 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Most cartoonists not working for the majors don't make a living at it. It's the work that matters. Roberson did a 252-page graphic novel, still works in the field, and is a very active presence in the comics community. And if you had done a google search under his full name, which he always goes by(because there's a lot of Robersons, after all), you'd have found a lot more hits Also, there are a lot of alternative cartoonists who turn up fewer hits because they have no web presence. The e-book in contention, incidentally, got a lot of notice within the community and included about 30 very notable people, as it was a benefit for EPICURUS and JOURNEY creator Bill Loebs. It wasn't a small thing. According to the info on it, it was done as an e-book only to minimize expense so LOebs would get most of the money.- gilesgoat talk 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

- Comment, You know, I half suspect you're John himself. I googled the way I did to reduce chaff, your search is a lot less specific. I do however appreciate everything you say, but, I still want the community to decide, is this entry and person of encyclopedic quality. As to Roberson being active in the comics community, how so do you mean? Steve block talk 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Nope, I'm not, but I am very familiar with his work. I question too the misapprehension that self-publishing is vanity in comics. It's very, very common in that field. As far as how active he is, I see him commenting on issues in comics all the time in various places and he's much more prolific than you might think. I dunno. But excluding him because he self-published PLASTIC is silly. It's not the scale, it's the work, and he's produced a lot of work and still does. And why does work on Eros count against him? I've seen it, it's good. Dirty but good. gilesgoat talk 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I have made no link between vanity and self publishing. I am suggesting the article is a vanity article. I am excluding him for having a lack of impact on the comics field. Steve block talk 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment How is it a vanity article if he didn't write it himself? All the info in it--and the original entry it was whittled down from--was drawn from stuff already on the web that I'd seen before, for my own part. gilesgoat talk 22:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment The article was created by an anon, so it isn't provable that he didn't write it himself. Second, all the information in the article isn't verifiable on the web. I could not find his birth date listed anywhere on the web, and would suggest this information is the sort of thing only the person in question is likely to know. I removed most pieces of information I was unable to source, please compare this edit to the current one. No sources for most of the information were given, so are unverifiable. Steve block talk 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment All I know is that I've seen that information before, as well as the picture, which I've seen at least a year back on his writers.net profile. I've made as much of a case as I can. As far as I can tell the main reason for removing him seems to be that he's not as well-known as some. To me that's not a legitimate reason, but that's my opinion. I may seem partisan but I go way back as a fan of his--I was a subscriber to PLASTIC.

Incidentally, just thought I should add: there seems to be a misunderstanding about PLASTIC now that its back issues are at Ebookopolis. It used to be a print publication when "Vitriol" was being serialized. The last issue he printed, no. 8, I received in 2001. So in fact he's only done one thing, WORKING FOR THE MAN(which he organized almost by himself) that was an e-book from the get-go. Also, his work was printed in Danny Hellman's LEGAL ACTION COMICS, and one of the pieces he contributed to in WFTM was written by Terry Gilliam collaborator(writer of the JABBERWOCKY film and former HELP editor) Charles Alverson. So this guy has worked with some notable people, and the fact he was able to get so many famous pros on what I recall as short notice for WFTM indicates influence and presence in the comics community, seems to me.gilesgoat talk 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

keep - does not seem to fit deletion criteria. Trollderella 09:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewritten page. I looked at this page a couple of months ago and it was full of Roberson vanity, clearly written by the subject himself and bursting at the seams with grandiose and unverifiable qualitative statements (Roberson inspired by Stanley Kubrick and other such rubbish). Kudos to Steve block for his rewrite--this is a now an encyclopedic article. Quale 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep John Roberson is a Fantagraphics-published cartoonist.
Keep I have no objection to the current version of this article. Alf 15:05, 2 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. Woohookitty 09:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Everything

It doesn't feel right. I think it's making a claim I haven't heard before, and I think it's POV. I also suspect a hoax, a crystal ball and a point. I'm probably dull and boring too, but so be it. I'll rise to the bait. Steve block talk 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find any references which indicate that this idea has been discussed outside of the article in question, making it original research. Besides, Gödel's incompleteness theorem makes such an encyclopedia impossible, since it could not possibly describe itself in complete detail. Pburka 15:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Pburka --TimPope 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I created the article, no, there wasn't any research behind it, no, it isn't a widely accepted idea. But why not create the idea ourselves, and make our own phrase, or own sentiment? If we all added parts to it, it could become a good principle. Tim 18:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as OR per author. Sdedeo 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Personal essay, original research. Or, redirect to Internet Archive; if we assume that Encyclopedia of Everything is not meant literally (and therefore not subject to Pburka's objection), I don't see much difference between this proposal and what the Internet Archive is project is actually trying to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Tim's verification that the information is original research. Zoe 22:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is an opinion piece, such as it is. Redirect to Everything2, which seems to want the job. Denni ☯ 22:16, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Delete original research - Wiki isn't the place to create ideas :) Ziggurat 22:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. I've also just removed it's main inward link, which was an assertion on Wikipedia:About that this is what Wikipedia aims to be - which I don't think is really true, as Wikipedia has been careful to define what it is, and what it will exclude. - IMSoP 12:34, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl 'n' Mearl

I can't find any outside verification of this comic. Joyous (talk) 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:24, 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 KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Mouton

This article needs too much work to live. At a minimum it should discuss or at least list all the proposed units, relate them to the earlier units they correspond to and the later units that adopted the concept, speak to why its decimal and related to an arc of the earths great circle, who Mouton was involved with as regards his astronomy, what problems he worked on as a mathematician, how his contemporaries received his ideas and what the connection is to measurements of the earth and the metric system.Rktect 21:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I don't know if having once tagged it I'm allowed to untag it, but I went into the article and, despite that it took some work, corrected some of the more glaring mistakes such as those regarding Mouton and the second pendulum using "Klein World of Measurement" and then added Klein as a reference.Rktect 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rktext, you have tagged this article as disputed, but have yet to discuss your reasons on the article's discussion page. VfD is not the place to dispute any shortcomings - until you have had a chance to explain / discuss the disputate. Ian Cairns 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

My origiinal reason was, that as others have noted, the facts were wrong, but I do agree that now that the worst of Egil's errors are corrected it can stay.Rktect 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. However, this article should contain information about Mouton, not Rktect's personal theories and original research about the entire history of measurements. Gene Nygaard

- I don't think citing a standard reference work that is in it's fifth printing is original research but in case you want to check me out, every fact I added can be found in Klein, mostly from Chapter 9 pp 105-115 Rktect 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep, I see no assertions that would make me think this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 14:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

~~Undecided~~. I wrote this (up to today), and spent some effort researching it, but as things are now developing, I think I would rather see it deleted. As it is, it serves no purpose other than wasting time and effort. -- Egil 14:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, because VfD is not cleanup. Mouton appears to be a notable mathematician, and is part of the ancestry of the metric system; an article about him would be encyclopedic. A random reference: [13] Nandesuka 15:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The problem is that the Wikipedia system as is makes cleanup impossible (kindly ask me by email why that is the case). So, in my mind, Wikipedia is much better off with this article (and many others) deleted than leaving them open to contributions from those who do not fit the assumption that people are reasonable and have good intentions, but are also not 100% vandals. -- Egil 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup is not impossible. It's not even particularly difficult. Try harder. I find that if you're right, you will quickly accrue co-editors who will help you reach (and implement) consensus. Nandesuka 05:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have tried this route for a month, and now given up. Wikipedia style "consensus" has been reached in VfD after VfD, but the only result is that the "problem" moves to new articles. Real "consensus" requires that the parties accept the outcome - when this is not the case the concept fails. -- Egil 09:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The problem here is not with the article, but with Rktect and his agenda. Pburka 18:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Notable mathematician for his role in the metric system. Capitalistroadster 19:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. VfD is not the place to complain about article quality. Sdedeo 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, clean up. --Finbarr Saunders 20:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and cleanup, bad faith nomination, since Rktect is in a running feud with Egil. Full disclosure: supposedly I am a minion of Egil, even though we have never spoken to each other. Zoe 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This VfD is a waste of time. Paul August ☎ 02:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep inches are still better. Klonimus 18:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article looks fine to me. Gandalf61 12:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. wow, you mean we could have had a system that made sense? linas 23:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Mostly typos and layout issues. Ian Cairns 06:39, 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. Woohookitty 09:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cry Havoc

Israeli band that, on examination of their website, played a first gig three days ago. Definitely non-notable. Shimgray 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Tagged - no claim of notability. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Unless the criteria has changed recently, band's aren't eligible for speedy deletion. Pburka 16:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I was going to speedy tag, but I went to check and couldn't find "no claim of notability" at WP:CSD; any idea what happened to it? Shimgray 16:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's only ever applied to people (criterion 7 for articles). However, this article may qualify as a very short article providing little or no context. Pburka 16:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - Evidently bands can't be speedied, even if there is no claim of notability (maybe something for the future), my mistake. At any rate, Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    - See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C for discussion of such a future proposal. DES ^(talk) 19:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Julius Caesar (play) and 'let slip the dogs of war' --Doc (?) 16:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. After deletion, create preemtive redirect to Julius Caesar (play). DES ^(talk) 19:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)]
Delete. Do not create redirect; Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, and many other links from quotes don't lead to their original texts. Leave space open for something encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes 20:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No opinion about the proposed redirect though. Jll 21:38, 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 speedy deleted. Joyous (talk) 16:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of writing instuments

Article seems to have been created by error? Contains no information, only some javascript code. 84.48.101.235 16:52, 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. Woohookitty 09:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4chan memes

Definitely nn. Delete outright for preference, otherwise merge into 4chan, which is probably borderline itself. Shimgray 17:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - while 4chan may be notable (and that's open for debate), a list of "current" traditions and behaviours is not encyclopedic; it is not easily maintainable, and of no real interest to anyone outside of the group itself. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 18:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete inside jokes and vanity nonsense do not an encyclopedia article make. CDC (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, memes, or catchphrases on the 4chan imageboard community should stay there for the moment. Alf 19:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If 4chan memes really had no interest to anyone outside the group, I'd vote delete, but they do. 4chan is quite notable, and the fact that a number of widespread Internet memes (including OS-tans, Bananaphone, Soy Sauce Warrior Kikkoman, Pedobear, the Numa Numa song, Limecat, There She Is!!, and quite a few more) originate or are popularized there is one of the reasons why. Penelope D 21:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- My bad; I missed the note that the article is supposed to be specifically a list of current 4chan memes, which is of course totally unencyclopedic. I hereby change my vote to Delete unless the article is changed to a list of popular memes that started on 4chan. Penelope D 21:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Why would an entry on "current" anything be unencyclopedic? If you're writing a work for reference, it's expected your analysis will be limited by the date of publiciation. This is analygous to saying the page "nuclear fusion" should be deleted because scientific research on the subject is ongoing and might be outdated when someone reads it.Vgss 21:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    - I didn't say an entry on "current anything" would be unencyclopedic, nor do I think that. I think an entry on "current memes on message board X" is unencyclopedic, because it is inherently of little to no interest to anyone except members of that particular message board. A list of popular memes that started on 4chan (and eventually spread to other Internet communities), on the other hand, would be relevant to people outside the 4chan community. Penelope D 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
      - That would be nearly impossible to compile with the difficulty in finding enough people who have been relgious member of the board since its inception. Even in that case, there is always constasting opinions on the origin of memes. The other alternative -- composing a directory of ALL internet memes, would also be too difficult, as there's simply too many forums and communities for even a large group to have success in cataloguing. I'm all ears if you can find a better title for my project, however.Vgss 23:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is an article of memes used on 4chan, not 4chan-exclusive memes. It is not difficult to maintain -- I estimate I'll only need 30 or 40 entries, and that's after 4(?) years of the site. Whether or not the interest in the subject is small, that's not a reason not to include it. Furthermore, these are not solely 'inside jokes' -- I've made a point of explaining the origin of "It's a Trap" and where "Cracky-Chan" superceeded 4chan.Vgss 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete Textbook example of forumcruft. Also, agree with Rob Church. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete In ten minutes, who will care? Denni ☯ 23:21, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
Smash with Xbox -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a list of memes is inherently non-notable, UNLESS a significant number of the memes are notable enough in their own right to receive their own article. ral 315 17:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with all haste. Memes only in use on one forum are not notable, and memes used in general should be in list of memes or list of catch phrases or list of quotes that nerds repeat in lieu of being witty or whatever. -Sean Curtin 01:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and take 4chan with it. MCB 06:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not that notable. ShadowMan1od 01:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Very informative The_Bug 0:00, 9 September 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hackfuck

A script apparently used on a single website. Little or no impact outside that site. Joyous (talk) 18:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox for script kiddies. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as link spamvertising, it is only saying 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' with a link to see if you are. Alf 19:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. CalJW 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I did not ask for this to be posted and it is intended for use on the WDF game servers ONLY. Can you please remove!!! n0-g00d 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 Speedy deleted HappyCamper 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Mouth quotes (uncensored)

Apparently a lift from Sailor Mouth with the word "fuck" added. I quail in terror at the sheer daring and bravado of this, or something. More to the point, I can't see it being in the least bit encyclopedic. Shimgray 18:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Distorted, nothing encyclopedaic about it. Manik Raina 19:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete speedy or otherwise, if and when the uncut version differences are verified, it would belong in the main article, sorry kiddies. SquareAlf PantsSponge 19:48, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. If copyvio, list on WP:CP. If not in English, list on WP:TIE. Neither is a reason to delete. Plus no consensus to delete. R adiant _>|< 18:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces

Delete copyright violation. Also, it's in Dutch, so if it's going to be rewritten instead of deleted, it needs to be translated or transwikied to the Dutch wikipedia. There is an english version of the site this was all copied from: [14] Bubamara 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. In Dutch, plus copyright vio as the above editor states. Journalist (talk • contribs)

Keep, translate and cleanup. It's a part of the Belgian Army. Government texts are not generally copyrighted; I'm not sure if this one is, but the article is certainly salvageable. R adiant _>|< 10:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting 28 August. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by cause

Too poorly titled or written to be of likely future value; "accidents and incidents" too general and all-inclusive; possible alternative title: Airline crashes by cause Paul Klenk 18:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete A complete list would include thousands of entries and be incredibly difficult to maintain. All notable accidents have their own page and other information available at links Drdisque 03:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete - isn't this what categories are for? Trollderella 09:13, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specterzero

No real assertion of notability, but probably borderline for speedy. Has won nothing, has no real significance in the field as far as I can tell. "Plays some games" does not an encyclopedia make. Shimgray 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I see Paul Klenk has attached a speedy to this article. I happen to agree with a speedy delete under WP:CSD Articles 7. The article has a nice attempt at Notability By Association by listing people who have won apparently-significant video game tournaments in its See Also section. However, the subject of this article can only make an unreferenced statement of being a "prominent member of video game community". That isn't enough for me. Sliggy 18:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts, Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts), Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts)

This VFD applies to these three articles as a group. They're all descriptions of exceptionally minor rocks located off the coast of Massachusetts, USA; see them on nautical charts: [15], [16], [17] These aren't true islands; one never breaks the surface of the water, one is underwater at high tide, and one is so minor it isn't named on some detailed charts. The fact that they have a name does not make them notable; mariners give names to endless numbers of rocks and other minor features; these names serve as communication and navigation aids for boats operating in the local area, but aren't otherwise notable. Some rocks are notable, of course; Fastnet Rock is one; but most aren't. Finally, these articles are short stubs; I suspect that there is little more encyclopedic information that can be added about them. CDC (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving this uncompleted nomination here. No vote for now. Denni☯ 18:45, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
- I type slowly... CDC (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - The islands are federally recognized and designated as islands in the state of Massachusetts, you can reference this information on the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS.) There's a link directed to the GNIS on any one of the Bass Rock articles. Also, Bass Rock in Norfolk County is marked with a buoy as an isolated danger, it's nicknamed or otherwise called "The Spindle", and on or around that particular Bass Rock lies a diversed marine ecosystem. At first, I might think of such islands as these as insignificant, too insignificant enough to be mentioned on Wiki. Although, if a geospatial satellite photogenically and geographically records and make measurements of such islands as these using tax-payer money, the man hours it took to record these into government datatbases, such islands as these with their designated names appearing on nautical maps and perhaps various other maps, people giving it another name and/or nickname to it, visually marking the presence of this particular island with a buoy as it seems to pose a significant isolated danger to passing vessels in nearby busy marine traffic areas, an important marine ecosystem existing on and/or around it, & etc. then such federally-designated islands as these must be of some significance, because the federal government, various government agencies, and various peoples and organizations sure do think so. Another point I would like to make is that islands of any "significance" evidently plays an important role in maritime claims, boundaries, and/or disputes for political entities. An example would be that the Pacific island Kingdom of Tonga was able to expand its jurisdiction, laws, and its national boundary by many nautical square miles into the Pacific Ocean from the point of the Minerva Reefs in 1972, a small and "insignificant" reef island that is barely above water during low tides. In addition, the Minerva Reefs was almost a widely controversial issue of interest in 1972, before the Kingdom of Tonga laid claim to the reefs, an American businessman seriously tried to convert and claim the island into an independent island country, called the Republic of Minerva. This reminds me of a common quote that I've heard many times before, is that "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Also, There's an arctic island and/or "rock" off the coast of Greenland that is an issue of a long international dispute between Canada and Denmark. The tiny uninhabitable island and/or "rock" is called Hans Island. Both countries has claimed Hans Island as their own, claiming that it's part of their country's soil and boundary. The dispute has become ever more significant, with both countries sending official government spokesmen and military personnal to and/or on the island, erecting their country's flag into this seasonally-unfrozen barren island and/or "rock." The international dispute still remains officially unsolved. UniReb 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Minerva Reefs and Hans Island are included because of the territorial disputes associated with them. But those three rocks are just rocks, they have nothing to speak for it. It is up to the article to assert its justification to be included. If that can't be done, be well rid of it. Wah! Pilatus 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a need to be rudely grotesque such as your "Wah!" outburst, it's not personal, just trying to make a defense for the subject as best as I can. Please try to act in a professional manner. Also, if these articles gets deleted then it surely will perpeturally make most island lists on Wiki incomplete. UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are passionate about islands. However, equally passionately I question the wisdom of splitting the information in Wikipedia into atomic stubs that will never grow beyond their present size. Case in point: Anuxanon Island southeast of Cedar Pond in the village of Lakeville, Massachusetts. Why not put them all into the Lakeville entry and leave redirects? Then at least people can have a more detailed idea of the area without clicking back and forth. Pilatus 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless some kind of notability can be established. Sdedeo 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My parcel of land in Queens is recognized by the City of New York; can I post an article about it? No. Can we post it because "it exists"? No. Because it has a name? My cat has a name, and NYC recognizes it in its existance by its vaccination record; can I post "Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody"? No. Reign in this Wikithink that everything mentioned in any book any where is notable. Proof of notability is the burden of the author, not the voters. Paul Klenk 21:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an extremely rude and grotesque comment, which is most definitely uncalled for. As I said before, it's not personal, please refrain from pure sarcasm, this discussion and all Wiki discussions should be held in at least close to a professional manner. I know how everyone has the right to act in any manner they desire, but it doesn't necessarily give them moral and ethical right to act so ignorantly amongst other individuals. Please act in a close to professional manner as best you can, it will surely help with your diplomacy skills which might proof valuable one day. Thank you! UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge all into one article, Bass Rock. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Note that Bass Rock already has an article, about a somewhat more notable island in the UK. Shimgray 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, then merge into Bass Rock (Massachusetts), per Sean Curtin below. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep; or merge as above, they were significant enough for people to go and survey them. Incidentally there is no policy on notability. Kappa 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC has a minimum standard for bands. Pilatus 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete They're freaking rocks! They have been surveryed, photographed, and buoyed not because there is something intrinsically exciting or wonderful about them, but so that people won't run into them in the dark. Those who need to know about these rocks won't be consulting Wikipedia for the information, and who else gives a beaver's backside? Denni ☯ 22:58, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
delete all . Notability not established. There are thousands of millions of small rocks jutting out of the world's oceans, most of which are listed and recorded as they are potential shipping and boating hazards. But they are not notable just by being. If they were important sites of wrecks, or seabird colonies, or notable for some reason, I'd suggest keep. Sabine's Sunbird 23:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. No vote yet, but I want to point out that we have articles on thousands of "freaking rocks" called asteroids (see Category:Lists_of_asteroids). I find it hard to see how a rock that is hundreds of millions of miles from earth is more deserving of an article in an encyclopedia than a named geographic feature jutting out of a local navigable waterway. Most of those articles are no more detailed than these three articles. -- DS1953 00:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- We do not have articles on "thousands" of asteroids. We have articles on a small handful of notable ones: the closest, the largest, the earliest known, and so on. The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list. I have no difficulty with articles on notable rocks such as Alcatraz Island or Percé Rock, but some anonymous outcropping that is merely a hazard to navigation and of interest only to navigators who have better information on their charts than they can get here does not, in my mind, rate an article. Denni☯ 02:14, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  - First of all, I was very careful to state that we have "articles on thousands of asteroids" (which is clearly a fact) rather than "thousands of articles on asteroids" (which may not be true yet, but I don't feel like counting). We have articles on the first 450 and a smaller percentage of the other 90,000 identified asteroids. Even apart from that, we have 200 lists of asteroids. The lists appear to be very complete and I question the statement that "The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list." They all appear to be very lucky, indeed, then. -- DS1953 16:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - Hmmm - "articles on thousands of asteroids". Now how would =most= people interpret that statement? And I consider 450 out of 90 000 a handful. Nor are there 200 lists of asteroids, there are somewhat over a hundred. Many of the articles are on people associated with asteroid discovery or research. There are several lists on asteroids because one single 90 000 item list is beyond the best browser's capability. Finally, bringing up asteroids as an excuse for keeping these rocks is a red herring. I am of the opinion that 450 Brigitta does not need an article either - the information it contains is so limited that it could easily be handled by an annotated list. Denni ☯ 19:03, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Delete as per User:Sabine's Sunbird. Failing that, merge somewhere suitable, maybe the county that they are located in. Pilatus 01:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete until such time as the Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody article is a featured article. Nandesuka 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rock the casbah. Gamaliel 05:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect These are real rocks, that someone might concievably look up. Since we have the information, we can easily afford to merge these into one article, possibly with some others, and keep the information. I'd like to ask for a moratorium on this one to have a chance to merge the rock articles into one worthwhile article. Trollderella 09:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, merge and redirect to create Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -Sean Curtin 01:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -- DS1953 16:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- But these are three distinct islands, are they not? Wouldn't that just be like having "List of islands in Massachusetts named Bass Rock"? -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge all back into Islands of Massachusetts, unless content can be expanded beyond a mapdef. -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep content, but merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Greatest Britons

I am sure this was a very nice and much talked about poll, but at the end of the day, that is really all it was. A media organization conducted a popularity to contest to discover what a group of people thought about the impact of other people in the nation's history. The poll does not really prove anything about the comparitive worth of these people, and it really only amounts to personal opinion, albiet the personal opinion of many. I do not think, therefore, that this is particularly encyclopedic. Indrian 19:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - we do have other lists like this, see 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock, 100 Greatest British Television Programmes and 100 Greatest Kids' TV shows for examples. Incidentally, that "media organisation" was the BBC. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am aware of which media organization conducted the poll thank you very much. That is completely immaterial to the point, as is enumerating other examples of wikipedia articles that do the same thing. These lists are by their very nature POV due to the fact that they represent opinion not fact. The only difference is that they do not represent the POV of a wikipedia author, but rather the POV of a large group of people sampled by a media organization. These are not fact articles, but rather opinion articles (sure they are fact articles in the sense that the polls occured, but the occurance of an event does not automatically make it important, and the thrust of the article is expounding on opinion). Lists like this are created all the time. They can be fun, but they are not encyclopedic unless actually used to further some noteworthy agenda. Indrian 19:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  - Keep Of course it is relevant which media organisation conducted the poll. If it had been a school magazine I would be voting delete. It is a fact that this happened and had a very high profile. CalJW 22:01, 28 August 2005
  - Keep The article is entirely factual: it comprises facts ABOUT prevailing opinion. Simple as that. Ramanpotential 29 August 2005
Speedy keep. David | Talk 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is how we get around the problem of wikipedia not being able to have opinions of its own. Kappa 19:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Fine as a marker in time, I have no problem with this article. Alf 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Widely reported on, commented on, etc., in mass media in the UK and elsewhere. MCB 19:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But the title could be more precise, e.g. 2002 BBC Poll of 100 Greatest Britons Jll 19:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This was a very wellknown poll. Capitalistroadster 20:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are too many lists popping up in the media these days (well, in the British media at least - I don't know about other countries' media). They seem now to be a subtle way of advertising. However, this one was different: it was widely covered for a long period by many other media organisations. --Finbarr Saunders 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename "BBC's 100 Greatest Britons (YEAR)" (similar to "AFI's 100 Favorite Movie Quotes"). Otherwise, anyone can have their own 100 Greatest. But check copyvio issues -- can we use this content whole-hog? Paul Klenk 21:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
RENAME Notable.Rename to 100 Geatest Brits and Irish.--Play Brian Moore 22:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course Keep CanadianCaesar 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Zoe 22:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is up for vfd? Keep, keep, keep! Ben davison
No question- Keep! --PatadyBag 02:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a growing worldwide phenomenon. They had 100 greatest Canadians, modeled precisely on the BBC poll. Don Cherry narrowly missed top spot :) Dottore So 02:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename. I go with User:Paul Klenk's suggestion. Tommorow some other 'eminent' organisation may conduct a similar poll. This will also take into account the cricticism about the POV Tintin 07:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename as per suggestion of User:Paul Klenk. --LemonAndLime 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable TV series, which has inspired similar series in other countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename. Never heard of it but then I don't watch TV :) R adiant _>|< 10:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - this was a major programme on the BBC and was much discussed about in British media. David 11:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename as per suggestion of User:Paul Klenk. Piet 12:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename or Keep; deleting is asinine. Wally 22:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename and Keep; the scope of the poll makes it noteworthy, but the title should be more precise. CancerOfJuly
Rename to include "BBC" and "poll". --JimmyTheWig 15:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't think that there is such a thing as a great Brit (I'm kidding), but nevertheless, keep. Gold Stur 20:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Saying that anyone or anything is the "greatest" of a group is POV. (per Indrian) If there are other similar pages, they should be deleted also. If any of these are to be kept, they should all be renamed per JimmyTheWig.
- Although I certainly agree that we shouldn't have Wikipedia contributors' lists of "100 Greatest xxx", in this case it's not Wikipedia contributors giving their POV. It's a major news organisation reporting on other people's POV - a different thing altogether.--Finbarr Saunders 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  - That should be reflected in the title, and the articles should include POV commentary (and I know that for most such lists, such discussion has occurred). Cmadler 11:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename. Also there should be some comment in the article about the block voting by students of Churchill College & Brunel university for their namesakes (which got them 1st& 2nd places).AllanHainey 06:51, 2 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. Woohookitty 08:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Clan

This might be notable in....whatever the hell game it's supposed to be in, and that's the only thing that's saving it from a speedy in my eyes. It's super vane, and poorly write. Feel free to speedy it if you'd like. Karmafist 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. nn gamecruft. "The first rule of Faith Clan is...don't talk about Faith Clan." MCB 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- nn - Longhair | Talk 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clancruft. By the way, the game is Gunz Online. Al 13:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Cruftastic! Hamster Sandwich 01:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as well. Thunderbrand 15:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Deletify I hate the word cruft. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 4 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 merge and delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:53, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Stearns World Headquarters

The firm is notable, but I see no reason why their HQ building is (and I've been in it, to apply for a job, years ago). Not quite a speedy candidate. Delete. DES ^(talk) 19:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge content to Bear Stearns; delete page. Paul Klenk 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalypse Pooh

I am relisting this for another round since it didn't get much exposure. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

~~Do iFilm's merit an article?? --Doc (?) 00:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)~~ strong keep obviously, sorry I missed it --Doc (?) 07:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they do. But this particular article can't seem to make up its mind if it's an essay on the Internet film genre or Apocalypse Pooh. Very weak keep but only if rewritten to be about the film and remove POV. Someone else has no doubt written an article on the genre. 23skidoo 01:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see any claim to notability here, and the article is a mess. Unless someone can convince me that this movie a) has been viewed by a substantial number of people, b) has a great deal of artistic merit and has been cited in reputable outside sources and is therefore worth cleaning up, I'm voting delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Such a film is not likely to show up on IMDb. We voters should NOT burdened with proving why it is not notable -- the author should be burdened to prove that it is. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable. Questions for discussion: How can a bootleg film be documented as even existing, beyond a sub-cult of insiders? What are the standards for documenting their existance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of us do bother to do some research. Yes, the movie is on imdb. It's a very early example of a mass circulation home movie of a type that has become so easy to make and circulate that we forget how different 1987 was. This was a historic movie of its genre. Keep --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've substantially cleaned up the article along the lines suggested by User:23skidoo. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - 'Film Threat publisher Chris Gore introduced a rare showing at the Atlanta Film and Video and Film Festival in 1997 with the words: "For all you cry-baby, whiny filmmakers who complain that you don't have any money to make your film, well fuck you, this film cost six bucks!"' Why would we not describe this movie as encyclopedic? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to personally thank Tony Sidaway for cleaning up the article that I intially wrote up, as messed up as it was, it was hindered purly by my uncertainty in what background came with Apoaclypse Now, characters names, not basic plot, and can only apologise for including personal opinion in the original feture, thanks to Sidaway, the short is now roughly close to what I wanted it to be, and I had hoped to return to polish it off myself armed with more research, the initial article was to ensure it was THERE when I got around to it-- Zarius]User talk: Zarius|^TALK]]00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 07:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are far worse articles on WP, on far less notable topics. I for one was hitherto unaware of this "genre". Shantavira 08:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable - Tεx τ urε 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed a "keep" vote added here by an anon user but signed as if by Zarius using ~~~~. Closing admin: - please verify with Zarius if this was his/her vote if Zarius has not responded her by that time. The situation appeared suspicious to me since a user would not accidentally vote while not logged in but remember to fake a ~~~~. I apologize to Zarius if I have acted incorrectly. - Tεx τ urε 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

KEEP, naturally...as this kind of genre to the less ignorant IS noticable and resourcful in various projects covering all aspects of animation, some bootleggers behind these projects went on to write for The Simpsons and Family GuZarius]User talk: Zarius|^TALK]]00:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC
- This is the anon vote in Zarius' name. His/her user page indicates that Zarius is a new user and I am less certain of my suspicions. I hope Zarius can confirm and accept my apologies if I have intervened incorrectly. - Tεx τ urε 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually he's had that account for over two years but seldom seems to use it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  - My main concern is exactly that. (Although the small number of registered edits may still indicate a new user and the user page still indicates this.) A smart disruptive anon can look for an empty house and start sending out mail from it. Faking the ~~~~ sig and timestamp seemed odd. - Tεx τ urε 15:22, 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. a VfD is not a way to fix a NPOV problem. Woohookitty 09:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Howard

This page is getting out of hand. Edits happen frequently, with both sides claiming POV bias. Propose locking until such time as everyone remembers that this is only the internet. Taoistlumberjak 19:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless his publisher and published works (ISBN) can be documented -- the article seems to suggest he is merely an on-line artist (it's hard to tell) -- and until the trifling controversies are either deleted from the article or asserted to be significant and documented. Paul Klenk 20:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The only reason this keeps getting deleted is that no one has the guts to take a stand against SeanHoward and make it NPOV whether he damn likes it or not. NPOV is Wikipedia policy and no matter what the person the article is about says can change that. -Hoekenheef 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. BTW, the current revision seems OK to me POVwise? Sdedeo 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's been bumpy but I think we're finally getting close to something worth keeping. --Spinn2 20:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. VfD is not for resolving POV disputes in an article where an NPOV version must surely exist. -Splash 21:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a vanity page for others to exert opinions on my character. I am just an online artist and my contributions have their own pages, making this entry superfluous. Controversies (recently removed and/or reduced before VfD) are insignificant and unworthy of mention now that I have retreated from public life (or else they would be mentioned on other people's pages as well, but are not). It's about me personally, making it impossible to keep NPOV or factually accurate. Wikipedia is not a place to nurture grudges. Delete. --SeanHoward 02:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
An entire sub-article could be given to PA's numerous controversies; for comparison, Strawberry Shortcake and Cayetano Garza make absolutely no mention of PA whatsoever, and record thereof doesn't seem to be available on Wikipedia at all. On the other hand, people complain whenever I redirect a cartoonist to his webcomic, and Howard happens to have two, making Howard's page more useful in the context of simply having an article on him. But despite being an even more notable personality in webcomics, Scott Kurtz's page redirects to PvP. No vote for now. Nifboy 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Merge the controversy section with all three of the following: A Modest Destiny, The Starship Destiny, and Penny Arcade. Redirect Sean Howard to his primary webcomic, A Modest Destiny. A Modest Destiny already links to the less notable sequel The Starship Destiny. And yes Nifboy, those other controversies ought to be mentioned on the Penny Arcade, Cayetano Garza, and probably Strawberry Shortcake articles. Dragonfiend 15:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not the purpose of vfd. Trollderella 09:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. That the article on a notable subject is subject to POV disputes is not a reason to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a viable article on a real subject. Mr. Howard simply wants it deleted becasue it no longer suits his purposes. CharlieFandango (Check!) 10:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep; If there's a problem with edit wars, etc., try making a post on WP:RFC. ral 315 17:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Don't mistake this for purely a POV dispute. If it had not already been vfd, I would requested it myself on the grounds that this page unfairly singles me out amongst other webcomic creators for the sole purpose of keeping petty grudges alive, and contributes nothing to wikipedia that the entries on my webcomics don't already. It's not that it currently has POV issues, it's that it never will have anything but POV issues. I mention this only because it appears people are voting to keep it purely on the abstract principle that deleting a page doesn't solve edit wars - the issue is far complex than that. Unless some individual will stand up and take editorial responsibility for the material written in this page, it's just a convenience for personal slander. It's a POV entry. As the person the entry is about, is my wish to remain a private citizen and not a public figure to be ignored by wikipedia? --SeanHoward 19:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't say "gave up your status as a private citizen," but when you decided to make a webcomic and put it on the internet, you basically said, "Hey, look at what I am doing!" Doing that basically makes you a public figure. Let me put it this way: If Bono suddenly decided to retire and become a private citizen, then that's all fine and dandy, yet people will still remember him as he was. Therefore they will write things about him and his life and music, and just because he goes away doesn't take away the memory of him. It's basically the same situation with you, Sean. You made yourself known and even now that you have decided to "retire," you will still be remembered for your comics, your strong stand against copyright violation, and the PA thing (unfortuantly). -Hoekenheef 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your wish to have a particular page deleted will be considered along with all other editors' wishes. Once the page exists, it belongs to noone and noone can force its deletion — not even the subject. If you didn't want the page, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. WP:AUTO cautions as such. We have many pages that have permanent POV disputes on them. George W. Bush springs to mind. -Splash 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

He didn't create it, as far as I can tell. (And does this whole bullet belong on the discuss page? I don't know how that works for VfD pages.) --Spinn2 00:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's ok, almost anything goes in a VfD discussion. I thought he made it from reading the above comments. Clearly not, I'm sorry. But anyway, we don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like us having an article on them, unless it is in someway illegal. Charges of libel should be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation. -Splash 00:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

What would constitute illegal? Publishing the name of a minor without consent, like my daughter's name? How about the fact that the dispute in question is simply libel against my person, with Wikipedia being used to repeat such damaging claims from an authoritative source? If not illegal, then how about just useless? Since I don't talk about my personal life online, the only reasons this page is to talk about my comics - which have their own entries and are more than capable of representing themselves without an associated author's page - and to repeat libelous statements verbatim without regard to simple things like... I don't know... facts, evidence, investigation, morals, or competence? I mean, I'm the world's foremost expert on me. What good is an article which not only ignores that expertise, but stands completely in defiance of it? What good is an article which can be used to defame, attack, or otherwise slander me that I do not have the tools to easily and quickly correct? There's no reason for this article to exist, and unless someone is willing to take legal responsibility for what goes into this article as it goes in, it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being. People get extra privs to edit their own user pages against vandalism, and yet I am forced to sit by, banned due to reverting the same malicious vandalism four times in 24 hours? That is completely unacceptable. Delete this article or take some damn responsibility for what happens to it. --SeanHoward 03:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being." Oh really. Then let me ask you. Has anyone ever come straight up to your home and throw rocks at windows, spray painted a slander on your garage, or done "donuts" on your lawn because of any of this? I will say it again, when you decide to make a webcomic you said, "Hey, take a gander at me and my work!" Oh, plus asking for someone to take some "damn responsibility", I think the already have tried to, but you come behind them spewing things like, "Oh, don't mention any of my incidents with other webcomic authors because it will tarnish my reputation." Get over yourself, Sean. Yes, there will be POV problems with this are, and do you know why? It's because there are idiots here who believe it is fun and enjoyable to vandalism pages, but they are not the majority. The majority of users want to help make Wikipedia betterand that includes the Sean Howard article. -Hoekenheef 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have had my personal property damaged and I have received very personal and detailed death threats over the very material which Wikipedia seems absolutely incapable of keeping straight. Is my moral peril not enough? When was the last time you had threats on your home answering machine? And I'm not complaining about obvious vandalism. That's not a problem. It's people who make subtle, but very malicious accusations on a webpage about me without having a damn clue what the hell really went on. Were you there? Did you read the email I sent to Gabe and Tycho? Did you see the forum avatars? Did you share PMs with the people who used them? Did you talk with the forum admin who dealt with it? Did you have an email conversation with Gabe or Tycho later? No. You didn't, which means you don't even remotely have half the facts and have exactly zero business writing about it. Nobody does, because I'm the only one with the facts - and here I am trying to actually share those facts, and I'm fought every damn step of the way by jerks like you. If wikipedia can't be used to actually share facts about my life on a webpage dedicated to facts about my life, what good is this wiki crap anyway? What recourse do I have to protect myself against wikipedia except to have the article simply deleted? --SeanHoward 02:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one, if the facts you have differ from what's written, the process of getting that changed is more presentation and discussion, and less vulgarity and invective. If you didn't let your anger push people away from you so much, you might have an easier time bringing them together. --Spinn2 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if you would calmly list the things that happened in the incident things would work out, the facts would be straight and we could all move on to other things. But having a fit is not going to solve the problem. -Hoekenheef 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I did. The reason I showed up here was because hard facts were being changed into alleged facts. Something that absolutely did happen (and proven) was being changed to "may have" happened. I came in, wrote down all the facts, accompanied by two dozen links to evidence to back them up from third party sources, only to have that material changed. Then a quote is put in the thing which is taken COMPLETELY out of context and implies absolutely incorrect things. Then I get accused of POV simply because I'm the only one who is qualified to comment - there are no facts here that have been provided by anybody but me. I've spent literally years trying to clear my name of these baseless accusations, and you guys have a problem because the FACTS happen to agree with my side of the story and not the baseless slander of some guy who never even had a shred of evidence to support his side in the first place. Hell, even in this section, my comments have been changed - granted, they did use a word that you can see on NYPD Blue or The Daily Show, but it is dishonest. I said "shitload" because that word had exactly the sort of connotation that I wished to convey. Removing that word without notice changes the sentence. Wiki's policy tells me not to curse, but it tells you not to censor cursing. YOU CHANGED THE FACTS! It doesn't matter one bit what you think about me as a person. I could be, and am, the grumpiest person in the world, but you can't go changing facts and starting edit wars simply because you dislike me. Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period, this article will be nothing but conjecture and pure fantasy as you guys write what you think happened with exactly ZERO research or understanding of the topic at all. You write what you write because you hate me or because your search for NPOV tells you to discount the only source because HE WAS THERE, not because you have any factual evidence or anything intelligent to contribute. And Hoekenheef, it's amazing how quickly your tone changed. --SeanHoward 15:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period," Not true. I would also accept Gabe as a primary source for information as well.--Leth 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

On some things yes. He can comment on relatively few things, actually. For instance, he'd be considered a secondary source on the actual forum discussions (if that. It's obvious he barely glanced at it). He would be a primary source on the email I sent him, but his interpretation of why things were written the way they were must be discounted. If the author says he wrote something and somebody disagrees, the author deserves the benefit of the doubt unless irrefutable proof exists otherwise. So, the amount of things that he can talk about with authority are few. It's a moot point anyway, because I don't see Gabe here, and you guys certainly aren't qualified to talk for him. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not moot at all; it illustrates why people are giving you so much resistence when you say you have the facts and are the only source of facts. Here's a summary of how that conversation just went:

[Sean]: I am the only primary source.

[Leth]: Not true, Gabe is also a primary source.

[Sean]: So what, Gabe's not here.

The point is, you're not the only primary source. And when you insist you are, it reduces your credibility. Especially when you tell people that another primary source must be discounted simply because you say so.

Now, are you the only primary source currently available? This might be true, I don't know. But this does not appear to be the statement you made. What you said is that you're the only source qualified to report on many of these issues and that we, and Wikipedia, are at fault for not recognizing this simple truth. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Policy doesn't say not to censor cursing. It says to leave it in when it's relevant to the article (like there's no reason to bleep everything in the Fuck article, for example). But, you're right, I might've overstepped editing etiquette there. Were this an article, we'd've discussed my edit rather than your yelling at me.

Plus, if you want to open a discussion about breaking guidelines, I would love to participate. There are a whole lot of behavior guidelines you've been regularly knocking down that I'd love to discuss. --Spinn2 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The section on avoiding profanity only covers writing articles with "brilliant prose". The section on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines doesn't say anything about profanity, but it does distinctly say "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission". You didn't just overstep. You jumped off. Besides, I use profanity well - you can say a lot with one word, more concise that way. "Wikipedia needs to show more responsibility" or "Wikipedia needs to show a shitload more responsibility". World of difference there, huh? I can't think of another word that would put emphasis on the right amount of disdain and distrust by which I judge wikipedia's responsibility and credibility. It's really quite pithy. It consists of pith. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You may be right about this. I jumped the gun. I should have allowed your vulgarity to stand, lest I give people an inaccurate impression of you.

However, do now make the mistake of using this example to invalidate everything I have ever done. As I said, were this an article, it probably would've been raised in a point of discussion and I would've stood by it or backed down, as necessary. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh did my tone change? Hmmm...Maybe I was trying to reason with you in a calm way. Just a thought.-Hoekenheef 10:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Even if people can't agree on all the POV issues the page still has useful information about the whole pixel art controversy, and it isn't worth scrapping the page and the history of squidi.net just because some people have strong feelings about who was in the right. Some people would prefer to just delete the article or bully others into removing it because they don't like its content. Worst case we could lock a stable version of the page that relies on the facts, but this isn't unresolvable. The entry contains the most relevant information there is about Squidi and the comic at the moment so long as it remains off the web.--BigCow 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and those interested in the POV issues will, hopefully, reach consensus. As for Mr. Howard and the "public figure" issue, I'd just make the analogy to a free press and news media. Can a person prevent a newspaper from publishing a news story about them? Under U.S. law, no, given the after-the-fact remedies of libel and invasion of privacy causes of action. I do not see anything in the fact of existence of the article, or in the content of the current version, that is either libelous or invasive of Mr. Howard's privacy. MCB 07:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A person cannot prevent a news story being written about them, however there are laws that pertain to what the press can print - laws which do not and can not apply to wikipedia. The press has editorial responsibility for what they print. They can be sued for damages if they print something inaccurate or unfairly damaging. On wikipedia, there is no one to take responsiblity. Yeah, there's "policy", but it's not enforced so much as encouraged, and edits are reverted after they are made public, not verified beforehand by an editorial staff with integrity and honor. I am not a particularly famous person and many of the facts about the controversies that people seem so insistant on putting on this page are little more than hearsay and vulgar misrepresentations. Because I'm not famous, the amount of people on this planet that could create a factual summary of events that only I was involved in can be counted on one hand (hell, one finger - me). Wikipedia editors without understanding or appreciation of the subject would find it impossible to properly represent facts and could be easily mislead with malicious edits. Simply put, I'm not famous enough for anybody but me to know what the hell is going on with my life, and I'm not interested in fighting to maintain this worthless article against jerks and vandals. Unless wikipedia can guarantee more responsibility than has been shown in the past three weeks, it has no business discussing my personal life at all. Period. Wikipedia isn't the press. Don't even remotely pretend that it is. --SeanHoward 08:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep - provided that some method of resolving the POV issues can be arranged. This seems likely. Nae'blis 21:34:26, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Keep, make sure enough people keep an eye on it, and let's calm down a bit with the drama. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but make sure the entire PA incident is fixed. Also, work on making the entire thing more NPOV, and maybe lock it once it is. The artice brings some useful information on Mr. Howard, and should not be deleted just because he 'says so' Although I do believe he has a right to enforce some NPOV rules about it, it should remain. Example: Say J.K. Rowlings (or for that matter, anybody at all) does not approve of their listed entry for wikipedia, or does not want themselves featured within the database. Such a desire is inconsistent to the desire of wikipedia itself, which is a database of information. The deletion of information just because the subject does not want to be covered is rather fallacious. Mr. Howard, you do exist, do you not? If so, then wikipedia, as a source of information, is fairly duty bound to present information about you (or anybody) in a NPOV matter. Fix the POV tendencies and lock the article if necessary. But do not delete it. User: Scion of the Light
Merge and Redirect to his primary work. Hell, even Scott Kurtz only exists as a redirect to PvP. This article isnt even about Sean Howard, just his works, each of which already exist on separate pages. Pages on artists are expected to have some degree of biographical information and cite their sources. As far as I'm aware, there are no sources on Seans life other than the man himself, and including information from him would violate both Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As such, there's no scope for this article to expand to the point of inclusion. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 07:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Btw, "Against" is not a vote. Woohookitty 07:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ode to spot

Contains the text of a poem recited by a fictional character. Not encyclopedic. Might belong on memory Alpha, but not on wikipedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Would this fall under the "copyright" issue? Delete if not already a copyvio. Joyous (talk) 20:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for both these reasons Jll 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete for both above reasons, as well as to prevent the precedent of posting any snippet of script as an article. (First, each character gets a page, then each scene, now each scrap of dialogue? I don't think so.) But thank the originator for bringing to our attention this enjoyable bit of poetry. Paul Klenk 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Copyright reasons, and would belong on Wikisource if not copyrighted. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Against I came to wikipedia specificaly looking for this poem, and happy to have found it. Could it be merged into the article on Data? Carterhawk 00:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This poem is already featured under Spot (Star Trek). Maybe redirect?. Brandon Bell 19:16, 5 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. Woohookitty 07:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Friendship

Delete nn Big Brother cruft. An alliance formed on the show. TheMidnighters 20:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. Note: this is NOT purported to be the title of an episode (even if it were, I would vote to merge it); neither are air dates mentioned. Notability is not established, or even asserted. Poorly titled for search purposes (who is going to look up this information using that title?!). Hot and crufty. We must reign in reality TV ephemera, people. We must question the Wikithink that it's notable simply because it's on TV. That is a patently subjective, non-verifiable dictum. Paul Klenk 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- hear hear! But why limit it just to reality tv? Delete Dottore So 02:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hark at the man. Reality TV is a virulent disease that this encyclopedia is better off without. I say Delete it. --Agamemnon2 07:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete Could possibly be made useful, but original poster wants to make it a love letter to the Friendsheep. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of this season knows how overwhelmingly unpopular these players are.--Firedrake 20:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly-written fancruft without context. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A heavily condensed version of this information would be useful in the main Big Brother USA article, but it's too long and crappy for me to even suggest merging it outright. Penelope D 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. I know what they're talking about here, but still ... Zoe 22:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, tv show -cruft. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable "alliance".Amren ^(talk) 23:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. ral 315 17:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm a HUGE fan of the show but alliances are not wiki-worthy. I'm a new user so I'm not sure if I did this right. WhatupDavid 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Information on alliances is already in show's article. --rob 23:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
DELETE WITHOUT DELAY PLEASE - This has the potential for vandalism, esp. if any of the members win the game. This page ought to be evicted from Wiki. -J L C Leung 11:53, 4 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!) 08:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nightfall Bot

Just another bot on just another IRC channel. Doesn't even seem to be custom code. —Cryptic (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 20:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What is its context in, well, the universe? No assertion of notability is made; this should be the burden of the author. It's lengthy, but so what? Paul Klenk 20:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Invididual bots don't need to have their own articles. Amren ^(talk) 22:48, 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.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:55, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Digital certificates

Should be merged with Public key certificate. Note that "Digital certificate" (singular) already gets redirected to "Public key certificate" --Finbarr Saunders 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Paul Klenk 20:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate nomination for VfD (or PfD, or AfD, or whatever it's being called at this instant). There are several merge headers : merge, mergeto, mergefrom, or you could be bold and redirect. VfD doesn't cover any of these. Zoe 22:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nezill

Vanity Crid 20:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as drivel on someone's screenname. Tagged as such. Paul Klenk 21:02, 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 REDIRECT to Militarisation of space. -Splash 02:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Militarisation of Space

This page exists as the introduction to what looks to be a POV original research / crystal ball article. I really don't see anything NPOV arising out of this that wouldn't be better suited to an existing article like spy satellites. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:44:00, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Delete crystal ball. --TheMidnighters 20:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Kappa. --TheMidnighters 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete all content but save as a stub -- the milit. of space is a real thing, and not the same as (but related to) spy satellites. Paul Klenk 21:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Militarisation of space Kappa 21:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Except -- what is it? AFAIK, there is no militari(z)ation of space apart from spy satellites. Isn't space a weapons-free zone per some treaty or other? I don't disagree with a redirect in principle save that I don't see any content to redirect to.

— Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:55:41, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Lomn, militarisation of space is about how nations are becoming more and more interested in space weaponry and space defense mechanisms. It was the Collaboration of the Week last week, so it is actually notable. ral 315 17:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect per Kappa. Sdedeo 21:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Kappa. Penelope D 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, no merge. ral 315 17:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Kappa. Militarization of space is very real. Cmadler 14:39, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EMC Stunt Team

Delete some form of nn vanity or cruft. Article does not assert notability, nor do 2 unique google hits: one from their site and a myspace. TheMidnighters 20:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fact? Faction? Fantoid? Hard to say. Clearly not suitable for WP. Paul Klenk 20:57, 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 move to Monkeys on ships. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor monkey

Doesn't eppear to be a term actually used. delete UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, he said surprisingly. The term may or may not be right, but the subject itself -- the practice of keeping monkeys on ships -- seems to be, I guess, established, at least in fiction. Imagine what this article would like if we left it to someone to research. Could be entertaining. Can't believe I'm saying this. Paul Klenk 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Note added by Paul Klenk: I found three mentions of this practice on the Web and posted them at this articles talk page. Paul Klenk 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Title looks like a neologism. Rename to Monkeys on ships or something. Kappa 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This doesn't seem to be a real term. Many animals have been kept as pets on ships — cats and dogs used to be commonplace too and I have heard of more unusual ones, e.g. a seal on a Second World War cruiser in the Arctic. There is a case for an article on ship's pets but not this. Incidently there is a curious bit of folklore about a monkey on a ship described in the article on Hartlepool. Jll 22:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and maybe rename as per Kappa. Penelope D 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename as per Kappa. Trollderella 09:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Pets in ships to cover this quite usual practice of the era of sailong ships, and allow to expand with entries for civilian and military ship's mascots, etc. (Note, "in" rather than "on" is the appropriate maritime terminology.) Peter Ellis 20:24, 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. Woohookitty 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheilaism

Information of no value to Wikipedia, potential Vanity page Avery W. Krouse 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"I think God would want us to delete this page." Paul Klenk 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable self-created religion. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN--inks 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 22:33, 28 August 2005 (U

Don't delete!!! A Yahoo search of this term produces over 1300 hits. This term was created by well-known religious scholar Robert Bellah (also creator of the term 'civil religion.'

delete. we must making this world free of nonsense. kill all nn!!! __earth 05:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't even tell from the article whether it's supposed to be a specific religion founded by this person, or it's the whole concept that everyone has a personal religion. It's unencyopedic and, frankly, incoherent. MCB 07:13, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spongyabob

Short page about a Hungarian Spongebob website. All text is presumably in Hungarian. ral 315 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-english page from english wikipedia. Mindmatrix 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete and retagged as such. Paul Klenk 21:18, 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.

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

The result of the debate was there's clearly no consensus to delete. Even if I don't count the "votes" that weren't signed, Mr Denni. Harrumph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lissaexplains.com

Lissaexplains.com was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com/2005-08-28.

Delete Fiftythree 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page, Advertising and self promotion. The article was 90% written by the girls mother and fellow administrator of the site. Hongkongdongle 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I have no idea why this page was nominated. Notable, verifiable. From the site: My site has been featured recently in the Washington Post, and several other large newspapers here in the United States including the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal. It has also been featured in several newspapers all over the world, most recently (May, 2004) in the Malaysia Star. Ifnord 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Again, I'm puzzled by the nomination. The web site clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines for website notability as evidenced by high Alexa rank plus media attention by national newspapers. I note the nominator and several of the delete votes have only edits on this specific AfD which makes me suspicious of puppetry. Ifnord 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  - In what way do you assert this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines? Nowhere is Alexa rank mentioned. If this site's Alexa rank qualifies it for Wikipedia inclusion, then you, Ifnord, have a lot of work to do - there are 29,999 other sites to be added. You'd better get cracking. And then, at the end of that process, you will have made Wikipedia into a Web directory, in direct contravention of the guideline you cited. -Ikkyu2 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Aside from Alexa rank, the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines. Media attention suggests notability (CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post). Thomas 9:17 AM 28 January 2006
      - Disagree. The media attention was likely trivial puff pieces about a trivial, non-notable site. -Ikkyu2 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        You don't need to hypothesize what the articles are "likely" to be. They are linked to from the article, and you can read them. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep 30,713 rank on Alexa, great for a website made by a child. Ruby 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page -- If you view the history of the article, most was written by a relative. J8675309 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- This newly created user has made three WP contributions, all to this AfD. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ruby. Children creating website is something uncommon. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The POV was pointed out in the last discussion about deletion, and most of it was written by a relative- if it's not popular enough to be written by someone that visits the site on their own accord, it probably shouldn't be here.
Delete per the above unsigned comment. --kingboyk 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Re-voting as the discussion has progressed and re-opened. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. -Ikkyu2 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete you gotta be kidding me. Eusebeus 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: An earlier AfD TimBentley 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't think an entry made by the girls mother should stay here really. The girls mother has been co-producing the website all this time, so it's not like it's entirely the work of a child, and the mother was probably also the one to call up the newspapers to do articles on her daughter.
Delete an 11-year-old kid with a website might have been big news in 1997, but it's nothing particularly special now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep the site is pretty notable, I have cut out most of the advertising. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ifnord. TimBentley 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Astrokey44, most of the cruft has been culled out. Calwatch 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, just like last time it was nominated. D e nni ☯ 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - website appears notable enough -- Francs 2000 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
keep, notable. // paroxysm (n) 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Moving new comments to the bottom) NOTE: UNSIGNED VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED. D e nni ☯ 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 Its a good site. Very popular as well as well moderated.
Keep. Thomas 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 For reason stated by Ifnord. 500,000 + google hits seems notable enough to me.
- Comment After further reading, this smells like a personal vendetta against the Web site author to me. Addie 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrienne.daniels (talk • contribs).
Keep. LissaExplains 3:58 PM 27 January 2006
- Note from Lissa at Lissaexplains.com One requesting deletion is actually a moderator that I removed from my forum considering his heinous behavior - the site was created by me alone, and the article was written by members of my forum. Relative is no longer a moderator, and really has as much to do with the Web site as all moderators do. I, personally, have never touched the article, and only recently noticed a slanderous comment within the article posted by two members who left my forum. I ran an IP search within my forum, and four users here are ex-forum members. This is an obvious case of trolling. 3:58 PM EST 27 January 2006
  - Comment I would also like to note that my above comment was deleted, and please, I do not want this immaturity to play out on the Wikipedia Web site. This is further proof of any personal issues held towards me, and please, if you have a problem with me, e-mail me, do not disrupt the credibility of the AfD process. 5:52 PM EST 27 January 2006
Keep Notable, verifiable per CNN, Washington Post. Jason 9:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Media coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Powers 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
whoah shit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.242.89 (talk • contribs).
Delete per nom TheRingess 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - meets website criteria #1. —ERcheck @ 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Andrew Lenahan Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity page - how does the second voter (who didn't sign) know it was "90% written by the girls mother"? --M @th wiz 2020 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Numerous articles in major media means this site meetsWP:WEB. Another one of the Washington Post's articles about the site is here. -- Dragonfiend 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep Notable, but oozes vanity... The Deviant 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable website with media coverage thus meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per prevoius AfD. Lbbzman 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ as it easily meets WP:WEB, plus previous AfD still stands - no additional information / rationale offered. Actually, I'm calling this a speedy keep as nominator offered no reason whatsoever for deletion. We really need more than a signature. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Further, nominator's only edits have been to create this AfD. Turnstep 05:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ikkyu2. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are three links right on the page to notable sources (Including CNN!) It's certain notable enough for wikipedia. --light darkness 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep It might "ooze vanity," but that's what the "edit this page" button is for. The website is clearly notable. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per comments above. If I was a cynic I'd say another case of "It didn't get deleted last AfD, lets keep nominating it til it does"....but as I'm not a cynic I wont.... Jcuk 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I am a cynic. Wisco 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete Just as a site is made by a child doesn't make it notable. Compu te r Jo e 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This one is easier than most. Usually a lengthy search involving some effort is required to find the non-trivial published works from independent sources. In this case, they are handily linked to at the bottom of the article. (The article could be improved further by citing the initial article in the Australian newspaper, as well.) I've read the subset of the news articles that are actually legible, and they are not mere incidental mentions or web directory listings. The primary WP:WEB criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Meets WP:WEB. Nomination seems in bad faith. Englishrose 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Owner of the site tries to influence the voting. User Jessily that voted for delete received a per direct ip ban on her site:

http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia1.jpg Another user that editted the article was punished also: http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia2.jpg Site owner admits it on the second screen. Two more users that either voted for delete or editted the article also went in problems. I think that the voting will be disturbed by these actions. If her site was good enough there was no need for these actions. This plus the other reasons stated above are clear enough for me.

Site owner banned my ip since she discovered my ip while i was editting my vote without being logged in. What a democratic voting proces! Dave83 16:23, 29 January 2006 (CET)

Comment: The process you are participating in is neither democratic nor a 'vote' in the sense that you are using the word. Refer to WP:DP for more. -Ikkyu2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Englishrose per above comment, bad faith nomination. Above user, please stick to the issue, which is the article in question.Jason 1128, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I have heard of this website, and it clearly meets notability guidelines. Dave83, there is nothing wrong with banning a person who vandalized the site article from the site forums. SYCTHOS ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It wasn't vandalism. The article was updated to reflect the current state of the forum, and was factually accurate. Lissa is definately trying to influence the outcome of the vote by retaliating against those that vote against the article. I resonded to her first comment, but it was deleted. I pointed out that she was lying in her comments here, and since it was deleted, I feel as though she is being allowed to say what she wants (whether accurate or not), and nobody else is allowed to provide the truth- either because it will be removed or we will be retaliated against. If that's not "disrupting the credibility of the AfD process", I don't know what is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs).

Keep. If CNN did an article, notable enough for me. --maru (talk) contribs 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. I'm also going to transfer the comment stuff to the talk page. Stifle 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Green

Delete nn musician/producer. Allmusic has never heard of him, unless this is the same Kirk Green who provided background vocals on a few R&B albums, either way he's nn. On Google a search of "Kirk Green" bassist returns 17 unique results (most of them unrelated), and "Kirk Green" "lauryn hill" returns 2. TheMidnighters 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete; notability thinly asserted. Poorly written. Paul Klenk 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 01:35, 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 RESULT.delete.

[edit] The War of the Worlds 2

IMDb has nothing on it. There are Google hits on it, but most seem to be speculative, based on a quote by Dakota Fanning. WP:NOT a crystal ball. ral 315 21:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete if no hits at IMDb. Allow me to suggest a protocol for posting "future" TV shows and movies: Until it is premiered in a theatre, a festival, or one of those critics junkets, it SHAHN'T be posted. It doesn't exist until it is introduced to the world, somehow. Paul Klenk 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:ISNOT a crystal ball and this needs lots of crystal. -Splash 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Speculative. Amren ^(talk) 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Splash. WP is not a crystal ball. Jaxl | talk 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wishful thinking? Note: Book was by H.G. Wells, not R.G. He did not make the movie(s). --WCFrancis 02:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete. we should add Star Wars Episode VII too! __earth 05:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. I can barely believe that's a real name! -Splash 02:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Djedptahiufankh

This was tagged for a speedy delete, but I don't think it falls into that category - there does seem to some information elsewhere on the web about this person. I suspect there is so little known about Djedptahiufankh that the poor fellow only merits a footnote on some other page. I've no opinion one way or the other, so I'll leave it up to others to decide. (I.e. don't take this as a vote for or against deletion.) Finbarr Saunders 21:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, looks like a typing test but does appear to be a real mummy [18]. Kappa 21:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or (if a suitable place can be found) merge. Apparently it's about a real person, but considering that the name gets 64 Google hits (compare 674 for Ahmose-Nefertari) and half of them appear to be stuff like "list of ancient Egyptian male names," I seriously doubt he's notable enough to warrant his own article. Would probably be fine as a short section inside some bigger article on ancient Egypt, but I'm not sure which. Maybe a section on whatever "Prophet of Amun" means in the Amun article? Something like List of mummies? List of slightly important people in ancient Egyptian history? I dunno, man. Penelope D 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Djedptahiufankh did truly exist. There are also several web sites which mention this person and he is also mentioned in Kenneth Kitchen's book, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. More importantly, his tomb was found intact and many treasures and dated bandages were found on his body. He was a very important person in her time--the Fourth Prophet of Amun--and merits some mention on Wikipedia. His discovery was a rare event in a country where Mummys were often robbed or destroyed in antiquity by tomb robbers. Finally, this web site confirms some of the details of his career: [[19]]

--Fabian Boudville 23:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep-At first I didnt think it was a real person, but I was mistaked. The fact that the mummy and burial site is well preseved mkaes it more than notable enough in my opinion. --Gpyoung ^talk 23:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm generally inclined to keep anyone who lived 3000 years ago and is still known by name. Pburka 03:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep! Of course! Trollderella 09:21, 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 07:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of things put on resumes considered to be cliché

Not at all notable or interesting unless you're working on your resume, and last I heard, how-to guides were supposed to be moved to Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf. I can't imagine this article being expanded into anything encyclopedic that wouldn't go better in the resume article. Also, the title's really awkward. Penelope D 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - a 'how-to' by any other name is still a 'how-to' --Doc (?) 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - anything that contains 'considered to be' instantly draws a frown. Barneyboo 21:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 22:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 22:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - considered to be is POV, besides the whole thing being unencyclopedic. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I implemented delete on this article. Sdedeo 00:17, 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 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lowter

Non-notable website. I abstain from voting; the website owner (and probably article creator) is an online acquaintance of mine. ral 315 21:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am actually the creator and owner of the website, but I had no part in its creation. Just so you can rule that out. Ethan 22:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You're the creator but had no part in its creation? Neat trick. :) Penelope D 22:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You can check its history if you'd like. I was just searching through Wikipedia to see if any cool websites have pages. Since my website is so cool, lol, I stumbled on this page. I'm voting to delete it, as to be honest it really isn't much more than an ad. Although we don't make any money, lol. I have no idea how to go about deleting, but I'm putting my vote toward it. 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sorry, guys, but it doesn't look very notable, so I'd vote to delete even if the article could be edited into something that's not an advertisement. Penelope D 22:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a web directory. But I'd like to try to help clear up what seems to be some confusion. I just got here, and am not familiar with the site or the article, but it sounds like Ethan is saying that he's the creator of the web site, but not the creator of the article. I think Penelope was confused about that, or perhaps just kidding. --DavidConrad 23:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct. Ethan 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Website does not appear to be notable. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thedore William Swang II

Vanity page. The only mention of him on Google is in a family tree. Mcfly 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now tagged for Speedy Delete. No assertion of significance (A7). Thatdog 22:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I only put it on VfD because it has multiple edits from registered users. Mcfly 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. -- DS1953 23:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (keep). Ingoolemo ^talk 20:02, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] 5.11_Tactical_Series_Clothing

This is advertising a commercial interest: it's a clothing and accessories company. Veg0matic 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

cleanup? __earth 05:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of controversial religious leaders

Can I add Jesus, Osama bin Laden, Mother Theresa and Ghandi, or shall we just delete? (unsourced and inherently POV) --Doc (?) 22:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

DELETE Rule of thumb kids - if someone is popular that person is controversial someplace Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete like that list of prominent visionaries we got rid of a few weeks ago. David | Talk 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to List of religious leaders, as that would be both funny and accurate. Penelope D 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Doc Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I've changed my vote, see the talk page.--T. Anthony 00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete problematic. __earth 05:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Haha. Redirect per Penelope D. -Sean Curtin 01:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Penelope D. Cmadler 14:48, 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. Woohookitty 08:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snn core

Wikipedia is not a crysatal ball, 15 Google hits, mostly subsites to this. Denni ☯ 22:46, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Delete; author can move content to a main article about the mother company, if he's quick enough. Paul Klenk 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete If anything, move content into a page about the main network as above. Rx StrangeLove 16:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - choster 21:23, 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 merge and delete Ingoolemo ^talk 19:59, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Missionary Kid

Just a no-potential dicdef as stands - wracking my brains for a redirect, but can't find one --Doc (?) 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete but move content to Missionary. "MKs" and "PKs" (preacher's kids) are actually very widely used terms with the missions and church communities. Paul Klenk 00:32, 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 MERGE to (Somewhere). A Man in Black has offered to do it, so I'll just tag the article. -Splash 02:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McGar

This pokemon cruft is so 'inside baseball' as to be almost completely unintelligible to anyone not steeped in the game. I think it should be deleted. DavidConrad 23:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge to another larger article, but only if other problems can be fixed. Suggest that the attack and counter-attack strategies by broken out into their own section(s) and bulleted. Paul Klenk 00:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Smerge to Gengar, which I will do myself if the verdict is keep or merge. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep but mark for being fixed up. Pokemon is notable as a cultural phenom. --Quasipalm 17:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this is one single moveset for one single Pokémon, in the context of a an online Pokémon emulator. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - I didn't know that. I'm changing my vote to Delete or Merge
Merge with Gengar obviously. Unintelligable to a non-pokefan and not even very well known in the pokefandom. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 09:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Gengar. It's a nice piece of information to have, but not worthy of a whole article.--Chercher E. 20:48, 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 the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devoucoux

~~Advertising. Zoe 23:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete - advertising, as Zoe correctly said. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Groeck 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep in its new state. Voters, please consider revisiting the page. I rewrote it to focus on facts and remove POV, subjectivity and promotional text, keeping only the promos that reflect on notability, but in a section clearly marked as promotional. (See note on talk page.) Paul Klenk 00:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I don't know much about horses, but 304 unique google hits indicates that this company is fairly well known within that field. Pburka 03:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks to Paul I'll change my vote to a weak keep. I don't know anything about these things. :) Zoe 04:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

erm, keep. Let's try not to list pages we don't know anything about for deletion! ;) Trollderella 07:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Bug off, troll. Zoe 05:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bass Ledge

Wikipedia is not a rock collection. Denni ☯ 23:42, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Delete - agreed. While some small islands are notable, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Who in the hell names all these little rocks? Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge back into Islands of Massachusetts, unless this can be expanded beyond a mapdef. -- Visviva 08:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep content, but merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegoose

Wikipedia is not a playbill. If something notable happens at this event, I'm sure we can add an article then. Denni ☯ 23:50, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Delete - if this becomes a regular event á la Ozzfest or Glastonbury Festival, then it can have an article. One-offs don't usually count. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless this is already established as an annual event, and the article can be thoroughly reworked to reflect that. Paul Klenk 00:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Vegoose is "slated to become an annual event in Las Vegas around Halloween", and "is expected to draw 50,000 music lovers". I gathered this information from this source. I've recently edited the article, and mentioned this. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 01:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

...is slated to become...is expected to... Then it's pure speculation, ennit? --Calton | Talk 04:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Actually "slated" means to schedule or designate, that sounds pretty confident to me. Also, what can they say? "There are definetly going to be 50,000 people there."? No, they can give you an estimate. It's not like theres gonna be 100 people, or 1000, even 10,000 people. I think we all know they'll be more... much more. At least common sense tells me that. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 17:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - as creator of the article, a Las Vegas local, and a future attendant of this event, I vouge for its signifigance. This is guaranteed to be a major event, with attendance expected to be in the several tens of thousands. Operated by the same people who do bonnaroo, many of the most well known artists in the industry will be there. Here are some other music festival articles that seemed to have made the grade, and that also appear to me to be less notable than Vegoose: Hot_Springs_Music_Festival, Darwin_International_Guitar_Festival, Brecon Jazz Festival, Pyramid Rock Festival, Samstock Music Festival(600 attendants at most), Nova Rock Festival, Yggdrasil festival (this article was created feb. 9th, 2005, and has recently been improperly VFD'd), Northwest Region Music Festival, Wireless Festival. Needless to say, Vegoose will surpass all of the forementioned festivals. What I expect will happen if this gets deleted: following the event, the relevance will be realized, and it will wind up getting recreated anyways. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 00:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- And when that happens, and not before, an article on it will be welcome. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete.~~ Changing vote, see immediately blow. Non-notable, advertising, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Can be re-created without prejudice when the event occurs and there is widespread press coverage or other clear evidence of notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your reference to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, here is an excerpt, "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion". Vegoose falls under this distinction. Also, this article was not intended to be an advertisment. I have nothing to gain from this. In fact I'll be losing a great deal of money attending the event ;*) And Vegoose will do well regardless of a wikipedia article, my intention was not to increase ticket sales. This event will undoubtely occur, and will be notable. Doesn't that make it notable now? - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 01:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- No. Produce a news article that says George W. Bush is planning to attend and I'll agree it's notable now. Heck, produce an article about it in the mainstream news media like The New York Times that says the rock world's eyes are directed on Las Vegas and I'll agree it's notable now. An assertion by R_Lee_E's that he knows the future and that it will be notable is not notable, unless R_Lee_E personally is notable, or a recognized authority. The future is not verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. Why on earth is it important to have the article in Wikipedia now? What's the problem with "userfying" it (moving it to a subpage of your personal user page) and then submitting the article again after the event has occurred? Quite likely there will be more to say about it then, and it will be a better article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. (Changed vote). Borderline, but references provided by R Lee E below, specifically rolling stone and Billboard, convince me that the preparations for this festival are currently legitimate national news if only within the entertainment community; Rolling Stone and Billboard seem to take the upcoming event seriously and consider it to be of some importance Dpbsmith (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bring it back if the event happens, maybe. Stlemur 03:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me say, with no negative intention, I find this VFD rather ridiculous. Especially considering the articles I mentioned previously, and the excerpt I mentioned from WP:NOT. Only an act of god can prevent this event from occuring now, and although I can agree that the possibility exists, I think we can agree the possibility is rather remote. Same thing goes for 2008 Olympics. It will be a very notable music festival, I think thats obvious. Though considering the direction this VFD is heading, and being that its not much of a big deal to me, I am willing to retract my vote. Though we all know it'll be back in 30 days, and sheesh, I can't see it recieving a VFD then, unless it's just out of spite. ;) Thanks for your votes, you might as well delete it now. But my opinion stands, the delete votes this VFD recieved were rather ill-concieved and apparently submitted on a whim. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 03:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Might wanna check out some of those articles I mentioned, if this very notable music festival is being considered for VFD, I can envision the same for many of those articles. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 03:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.S. Might it have been more appropriate to tag it with something similar to:

This article or section contains information about an upcoming sporting event.
It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available.

featured on 2008 Olympics? - R Lee E

(talk, contribs) 03:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

keep - there is an article in rolling stone [[20]] and it does seem to be notable, since the line-up is so genre defying (an explination of the diversity deserves a special mention in the article). if concerts are in wikipedia, why not this one? certainly an event like this in LV with $50+ tickets is of some magnitude.

The above post was submitted by User:209.234.66.97. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 04:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not promotional vehicle, etc. --Calton | Talk 04:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The vote above is what I mean by "submitted on a whim". - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 04:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Agree with first poster; one-off events should not count unless they prove to be notable (like, if Beck goes nuts and kills people) or once, in the future, they become regular events LadyClaudius 04:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a new template, just for the heck of it. I updated the article to include it. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 07:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

- Please give a reason why it is so important for this to be in Wikipedia now. Wikipedia articles are not news reports "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news." Time will tell whether Vegoose is a "topic of historical significance." Is it "currently in the news" on anything beyond a local level? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are several news articles about Vegoose that come from large reputable, non-local companies:

All of the above mentioned articles are not local to Las Vegas at all as far as I know, and they are very reputable companies. I specifically weeded those out of many, many other articles available about vegoose. While people invest hours of their time adding every single pokemon character, or every single obscure star wars character, or every single zatch bell! character to wikipedia, I'm trying to provide relevant info about a very notable music festival, expected to bring in many tens of thousands of people, and that will likely be an annual event for years to come. Thats why I think it's important now. I believe I've answered both of your questions. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 17:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

- OK. The second Rolling Stone reference (first isn't really about Vegoose at all, just mentions it as one of umpteen upcoming performances) plus the Billboard article is good enough for me. Changing my vote to "keep," as noted above. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete No matter how wonderful this may well be, it has not happened yet and it has not ever happened before. Why does R Lee E not understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the entertainment section of the paper? We are in the business of writing about what is, not what will be. Denni ☯ 18:09, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

NOTE: The above vote was submitted by the same user who created this VFD.- R Lee E (talk, contribs) 19:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The references to Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball above state the criteria, and Vegoose falls under this criteria. I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia (thanks for demeaning me) BTW, you started this VFD didn't you? Doesn't that mean you've already submitted your default 'delete' vote? Is it nessecary, or allowed to vote twice? I may not understand the process fully, I apologize if I'm wrong. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 18:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

- Yep, you're wrong. My nomination does not constitute a vote, and is not counted as one in the final tally. If I want to cast a vote, I must do so explicitly. Often I do not vote on articles I bring to VfD; this time, I am. Denni ☯ 00:50, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Thanks. But is there something here that I'm not understanding correctly? > "Nominations imply a Delete vote unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." from Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Nomination and possibly "When someone has listed an article for deletion on one of the lists, anyone ELSE may comment on the request." from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion Sorry to keep this going, but I have never seen a nominator vote. I mean its not a huge deal to me whether this gets deleted or not, but I don't want it done illegitimately. Your comment for nomination at the top of this page, "Wikipedia is not a playbill. If something notable happens at this event, I'm sure we can add an article then. " sure seems to insinuate a delete vote. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 08:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, the acting admin is not going to count it twice. Relax about it. I happen think Denni is mistaken about this, but it doesn't matter. It will be perfectly clear to any admin who closes this VfD that Denni's intention is to cast one vote for deletion.

10-4, relaxing. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 04:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, crystal ball stuff. Methinks its supporters doth protest too much. Zoe 07:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with me trying to prevent my article from being deleted. Among the other countless tasks and chores I perform, I also like to keep tabs on my own work. I respect your vote to delete, I would hope you respect my wishes to keep. In regards to your only apparent objection to the article (crystal ball), it's been discussed, and in my opinion, shot down. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 07:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 01:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 06:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger OS

Nothing on Google, crappy article, and in the article it says the company says it won't release any info until 2006. Delete --Shanel 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - although a rubbish article isn't grounds for deletion, we don't have anything to go on on this new OS. Hell, Apple might not even survive that long. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, they've been saying that about Apple since 1985. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete with an additional SD tag added. Paul Klenk 00:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Borderline speedy. Would a serious company with any likelihood of producing a real OS use a name already [trademarked by Apple]? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see below
Redirect without merge into Mac OS X v10.4 ("Tiger"). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to mac tiger, as per andrew's suggestion __earth 04:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable -R. S. Shaw 05:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to OSX Tiger as suggested. Expand to full article when, or if, it gets actually released and becomes more notable. (Really funny pic though. Rip-off of Debian logo, "based on Linux and FreeDOS", har har...=) --Wwwwolf 16:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merge into Mac OS X v10.4 ("Tiger") as suggested by Andrew pmk. Reduces the chance of re-creation and "Tiger OS" is a fairly plausible title for an article about Mac OS X v 10.4. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect without merge. -Sean Curtin 01:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Andrew pmk. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:30, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] August 28

[edit] Adam J. Pearce

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard

[edit] Arielle

[edit] Thwack

[edit] "monteux west llc"

[edit] cakeplow

[edit] Gabriel Batz

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard

[edit] Shillian

[edit] Royal friesland foods

[edit] Vaishnava Theology

[edit] Reasoned Cognition

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content

[edit] Tokpela

[edit] Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (translations)

[edit] Esquivalience

[edit] Gamer Unlimited

[edit] The Psychedelic World of the Vanishing Cucumbers

[edit] NASCAR Nation

[edit] G-Unot

[edit] Prison Break

[edit] MediatoolsEC

[edit] FYSOP

[edit] Silly apple club

[edit] Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ

[edit] White Feather

[edit] IG Culture

[edit] Chi-Chi (Scarface)

[edit] List of sporting teams eponymous to automobile-related topics

[edit] Kenneth Joel Hotz

[edit] Marshall Sachs

[edit] Fitzroy Tavern

[edit] The Pilot Episode

[edit] NYU residence halls

[edit] Monkeysorce

[edit] Pia Manalo

[edit] Hacked By Chinese!

[edit] Tales of Legendia

[edit] Maria Manakova

[edit] Smokabong

[edit] Chips mackinolty

[edit] UK Subs

[edit] Morgan Turinui

[edit] Request-A-Song.com and related pages

[edit] Some simple sentences in lugisu (lumasaaba)

[edit] Jessica Stover

[edit] Brillant

[edit] Kayserispor

[edit] 400_Club

[edit] The Conflict in Palestine

Three articles to merge

[edit] Forest cafe

[edit] Frank Lopez

[edit] Sega Genesis Master CD 32X System

[edit] Rolia

[edit] Alexandra Paris

[edit] Diana Court

[edit] Oilily

[edit] Stoned Mullet

[edit] Zeem

[edit] Breast euphemisms

[edit] Irish people

[edit] Kaskus

[edit] Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma

[edit] John Linton Roberson

[edit] Encyclopedia of Everything

[edit] Pearl 'n' Mearl

[edit] Gabriel Mouton

[edit] Cry Havoc

[edit] History of writing instuments

[edit] 4chan memes

[edit] Hackfuck

[edit] Sailor Mouth quotes (uncensored)

[edit] Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces

[edit] List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by cause