Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 10

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by Cyrius. —Cryptic (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer HELP for "OLDIES" & "NEWBIES

Delete The article appears to consist mostly of just advertising. --Mysidia 05:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- This is not a soap box, after all. TomStar81 05:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ick. Delete as link spam, blatant ad with a totally useless title. - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure advertisement. ManoaChild 06:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Bhumiya/Talk 06:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:41:24, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete - BrainyBroad 11:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Several Times 13:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your adverts for free Zaw061 15:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NRS11 Advertisement. This artical is not really meant for Wikipedia. 16:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugh. Valhallia 11:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinfonia Academy of Music

Appears to be MLM Spam from Malaysia. No context nor location provided. Only source seems to be school's marketing website: all other Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Robert A West 05:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• See also Sinfonia Quartet below. Robert A West 06:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 07:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:32:59, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NRS11 Seems like an advertisement to me. Not helpful to the Wikipedia community. 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. JamesTeterenko 07:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sport in the European Union

Sport is organised on a Europe wide basis, not an EU basis, eg European Football Championship, Eurobasket, so this article is misleading. It has a clear agenda of promoting the idea that more European Union control would be a good thing. It is irredeemably point of view. Delete Osomec 06:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete based on above points. Rkevins82 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. That's certainly one view, Osomec. I urge caution, however. I can concieve of an acceptable article that spoke of sport within a socio-political polity. It would not necessarily imply that sport within the EU was somehow superior to sport in Europe. As a record of sporting activity that took place within a polity, I see no reason why it should not be allowed. Of course, there should be some broader significance to it; theoretically, one could write an article about "Sport in USA, Mexico and Thailand," but it's difficult to see a case for including such a thing in an encyclopedia. With the EU, however, such difficulties are very much less. I do agree with you that as it stands the article is a thinly veiled political statement, but I feel that for the above reasons the best course of action would be to keep and apply the {{{attention}}} tag; get the involved editors to write a piece that actually does a decent job describing "sport in the EU." If this effort fails, and the article remains as it is, I will vote delete if you bring it back to VfD.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:50:22, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Many of the articles linked from Life in the European Union itself up for deletion, had a chronic pro-EU bias, which I have done some work on. If this doesn't get deleted, it should at least be moved to a title which reflects the fact that sport does not operate at an EU level in the way it does at national level or in Europe at least at continental level. I have already moved Education in the European Union to Educational policies of the European Union, as the EU does not run the education systems in its member states or operate a single education system. Osomec 15:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Not irredeemably POV. Useful topics would include: how do EU rules, customs, and market organization impact sporting events and athletes? How have sporting organizers reacted to the expansion of the EU? etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:55, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Well it certainly wasn't the intention of the writers to make a serious impartial appraisal of the EU's minor role in sport. As I mentioned above, the title is irredeemably pov, even if the content could be made neutral, as was placing the article in category:Sports by country, Osomec 15:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. There is the basis of an article here on the EU's sports policy and any intention it may have to expand its role and the response/reaction in other countries. Capitalistroadster 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The EU's role in sport is so minor it only deserves a mention not a whole page. The only factual information in this article is copied from the European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics page. The rest is vague statements like "a variety of sports is practised in the EU" - you don't say! JW 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless mirror article. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. JamesTeterenko 07:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Council for a workers international

The title of this page should be the Committee for a Workers International. Since this page contains no new information not on the existing Committee for a Workers International page, it should in my opinion be deleted.

Delete Amnonc 16:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand your nomination. If it contains "new information not on the existing" page (emphasis mine), why would we want to delete information? From what I saw this does have some different information, so Merge with Committee for a Workers International. CanadianCaesar 06:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, this page contains no new information so there is nothing to merge. If you can see any new information which should be merged, please point it out. Amnonc 10:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Committee for a Workers International and merge any info that would be lost. --Apyule 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like a Redirect to me Saswann 16:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinfonia Quartet

nn per WP:Music Just a recital group at a local music school probably near Kuala Lumpur Robert A West 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• See also Sinfonia Academy of Music above. Robert A West 06:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established, although I could see maybe merging selected info into an article on the 2004 tsunami relief efforts, if such an article exists. --Alan Au 07:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And if the fundraising claim can be verified. Given the paucity of hits, that will be tough.Robert A West 08:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Just checked all the hits again, and they are either references to the work by Salamone Rossi, or one by Anton Reicha or they are just WP mirrors. Robert A West 08:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:53:19, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete nn quartet vanity. --Etacar11 00:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 14:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USWebhosting

Spam. [6] chocolateboy 06:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it just needs to be edited so that it talkes about the company in the third person, "the company" could replace "our company" ChadThomson 07:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant advertisement, and copyvio to boot. --Alan Au 07:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Alan Au. - DoubleCross 11:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Alan Au. --Apyule 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (and bicycle). Eugene van der Pijll 14:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palo Alto Montessori School

Completely non-notable preschool. Has no future potential for notability. Gateman1997 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Non-notable preschool. Gateman1997 06:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Presumably is of note to the community it serves. Philip Arthur 06:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Montessori school is of note to the community it serves. Montessori schools are not public schools, this is advertising of a commercial venture. Zoe 06:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course schools are of note to the community they serve. Wikipedia is not communist. Kappa 06:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with keeping public schools, but this is not a public school. Should we have an article on every Boys' and Girls' Club? They are probably more notable to a community than a Montessori school is. Zoe 06:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see why being public or commercial makes any difference to its notability, as opposed to perhaps its verifiability and our ability to be NPOV about it. Kappa 07:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Very few preschools are notable in a wikipedia sense. ManoaChild 07:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Schools/Arguments to Delete - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Communist? Gamaliel 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I draw the line here. Schools are maybe OK to include in an encyclopedia, Preschools are not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there might be a handful of interesting and important preschools in the world. Not this one. Rkevins82 08:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Brenneman.--Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. I'd also like to ask: Communist? WTF? android79 10:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I've expanded a bit, but in my opinion it's too trivial to stand alone at present and is unlikely to be expandable. There just isn't enough to write about a pre-school--no curriculum detail, no school inspectors, no competitive sports, children too young to articulate publicly, etc. Merge any useful information (eg URL, accreditation) with Palo Alto, California which already contains a reference to the school. And redirect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the school thing is getting out of hand: Preschools are not schools, people! It's right in the word: "pre"-school, meaning before school. Unlike a university or high school, anybody with some spare space in their house, a few toys, and free time during the day can set up a preschool. Also, preschool articles are unlikely to be truly verifiable, as almost all information about them comes from their own websites or ads. Please, think before you vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Starblind, also very few preschools would be notable Salsb 14:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Starblind. According to Montessori method "There are currently over 3000 privately held Montessori schools in the USA", "most of which" cover the 3-6 age range. Does WP need another 2000+ articles like this? 192.18.1.5 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I really don't see any decent reason to remove it. Unfocused 15:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Palo Alto, California where the school is already described. — RJH 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Nandesuka 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete indifferentiatable from other pre-schools. --Tim Pope 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, counterrevolutionary. Gazpacho 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep please it is not communist gate man why did you create a article about your own preschool and now you want to erase this one that seems weird Yuckfoo 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you just call me a communist?Gateman1997 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Go right ahead and call Joe, Kappa. --Scimitar ^parley 17:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Like most schools, non-notable. --Carnildo 18:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it had some notariety outside of the local community, it might be worth keeping. This does not. Allegrorondo 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete preschools and primary schools. Dunc|☺ 18:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable preschool, like millions of others CDC (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This really is a line that should not be crossed. Although I don't see much harm in a redirect, I do not see much value either. -Splash 19:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle, for the usual reasons. Equally as notable as Village Preschool of Saratoga, which the nominator created. —RaD Man (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the same creator later changed his vote to delete on that article's vfd. Gamaliel 19:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? My vote there is exactly the same as it is here. —RaD Man (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• How could "creator" refer to you in this case? I was clearly talking about User:Gateman1997, whom you noted was creator of Village Preschool of Saratoga. Gamaliel 19:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Creator" always refers to me. :) —RaD Man (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, thats what Lenin would say too. feydey 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Non-notable pre-school, which is almost a redundancy. No slightest evidence of encyclopediac content, and no reason to expect any. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete People are writing article about preschools now?! Please excuse while I go cry... Soltak 22:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Fg2 00:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Expand If that's all there is, then maybe the contents could go into the palo alto article. However, I don't like the idea of upmerging though, because for a half dozen or more mentions of schools most articles about decent cities would bloat up like the guy at the end of that Monty Python movie. Maybe a merge to Pre-schools in Palo Alto, California is the right place for this. This is definitely a vote against deleting verifiable information. SchmuckyTheCat 01:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• We keep railway stations. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep schools - big or small, private or public, high or pre. There is no justifiable reason for deleting articles about verifiable permanent institutions.--Gene_poole 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You want to keep all "verifiable permanent institutions" do you? how about sewage plants? water treatment facilities? power plants? factories? Jails? Casinos? Municipal power companies? A line really ought to be drawn somewhere, and I think preschools ought to be beyond it, unless there is sonmething unusual about a particular preschool that makes it notable and encyclopaedic. A preschool with general fame, or one founded to try a well known and contraversal method of education might well be notable, but a more or less ordinary preschool would not be. Montessori Schools in general as a movement or a type of school, certanly are notable, but not this particualr Montessori School. DES ^(talk) 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "sewage plants? water treatment facilities? power plants? factories? Jails? Casinos? Municipal power companies?" Absolutely! The only reason I would reject this article is lack of verifiability. Are you *seriousl* suggesting that if I wrote an article about my local water treatment plant you'd vote to delete it? And Wormwood Scrubs? Pentonville? You're proposing to delete articles about the prison systems? The mind boggles! What *are* your criteria for notability if you would delete such a thing? --Tony Sidaway^Talk
      • Yes I would vote to delete an article about a local water treatment plant, unless it was in some way unusual, significant, or of more than local importance, as shown in the article. Note: I said "jails" not "prisons" much less "prison systems". I was talking about ordinanry municipal or county level lockups -- there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of such, few of any particular interest or notability ouside of their local areas. (So, not Wormwood Scrubs, but the Foo Street Magistrate Court's lockup I would consider non-notable.) In general, a physical or social structure similar in function and design to many other such structures, in no way exceptional, and of little or no interest beyond its local area is IMO not notable, and all the above kinds of institutions would usually fit this limit, as do most schools. I trust that makes my criteria clearer. DES ^(talk) 06:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiable != encyclopaedic. Not notable. Proto t c 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• D, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of this preschool's notability. Sliggy 16:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. No Account 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. AlbertR 02:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable pre-school. What next? Daycare centers? Part-time baby-sitters? --Tysto 20:16, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Geogre. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurolingue

Delete. Euroclone #9980. It looks like the language was only started very recently, and that it hasn't acquired any significance yet. Of the ca. 1000 ghits most point to a language institute of the same name. The mailing list for Eurolingue has only 4 members and 13 messages. The same article was deleted on July 21 after this VfD. IJzeren Jan 07:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Deletolingue per nom. --Alan Au 07:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems like vanity to me to turn an individual's geocities language into encyclopedic material. Oh, and only 4 members. Rkevins82 08:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search for "Eurolingue language" gets 389 Ghits, none of those on the first three pages relating to this auxlang. (Memo to auxlang creators: try to pick a name for your language that doesn't already get scads of Google hits for something unrelated.) --Jim Henry | Talk 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy as recreation of previously-VfDed material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. arj 12:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness#Verifiability and Original Research. The discussion about verifiability of conlangs has centered around whether they have been extensively discussed by people other than the creators of the language. Do you see any evidence of that w.r.t. Eurolingue? If the only possible source for the article is the creator's website, it verges on original research. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete substantially the same article as one previously deleted per the deletion policy. I'll so nominate it. Robert A West 17:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, I can live with that! --IJzeren Jan 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False prophet

• Keep This page is important to religious study. It should be kept. 16:19 11 August 2005 The Halo

This page has practically no information and does not confrom to neutral point-of-view. Moreover it uses the word "literally" with the wrong meaning, and gives other irrelavent information

• It's weak writing, its POV, it contains a lot of irrelevancies. But, it is about a subject on which verifiable scholarship exists. Granted, almost none of it is in the article, but it exists. I'll turn it into a stub and vote keep. Maybe someday I'll get back to it. Robert A West 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Since everyone finds the new stub workable, do we have a consensus for speedy keep? Robert A West 19:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering. What kind of article would this be? Either a dicdef of the phrase "false prophet", or you-name-it religious usages of the term plus lists of "things that did not come to pass" such as cold fusion or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" depending on the POV of the editor (the phrase is usable in contexts outside the religious, after all), or a wasteland of "Your edit saying that Julian The Grumpy was a false prophet in 1127 has been reverted because his prophecies will come to pass in 10 years, O blasphemer" entries. Either way, it'l be interesting... I note that the article has already caused a religious schism right here on the VfD talk page :-) Tonywalton 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also Keep but needing re-work. I've changed that stub from Christianity-stub to religion-stub though; Christianity is not the only religion which claims prophesy (or accuses prophets of falsehood) Tonywalton 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Touché. It was 3AM and I was in a hurry to rewrite it. Robert A West 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Bless you my son ;-) Tonywalton

• My thoughts precisely. Except for the bit about returning to it.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:06:15, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Keep in the current version as a stub. BrainyBroad 11:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — JEREMY 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Weak writing, but this is potentially a very important topic for people researching religion.--Frag 14:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Gee, thanks! I thought my rewrite was a distinct improvement!  ;-) Robert A West 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep the stub, expand the topic. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable religious topic. Capitalistroadster 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The topic is important and should be expanded (e.g. include Shabbetai Zvi) Dottore So 19:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
• Speedy Keep. Should have been listed as a page needing attention. ArcTheLad 19:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • <soapbox>Yet another example of why improving the "pages needing attention" process will help VfD.</soapbox>Robert A West 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beautality

Neologism. Would have transwikied it, but no such word. <300 Google hits. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even of real words.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:07:39, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. BrainyBroad 11:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. feydey 21:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Sputum

This charming title is, believe it or not, band vanity. No relevant Google. - Lucky 6.9 07:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• LOL. You know, that could become an excellent medical article. Although I'd probably title it sputum and describe the differential for bloody sputum in a subsection.*Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:09:59, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Bloody Delete Tonywalton 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no allmusic.com presence either.-Splash 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even as notable as private farmland festivals are. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 19:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El effecto

Vanity page/advertisement with no information except website and location. Rkevins82 07:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. -Mariano 08:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:14:44, 2005-08-10 (UTC) Question. Shouldn't there be a speedy delete tag for what are blatantly ads? We have one for ads of persons, so to speak; {{{db-bio}}} is used for vanity pages by individuals. Is there one for companies? Bands? Private preschools? —Encephalon | ζ | Σ
  • There are no such criteria for speedy deletion. For bands where it is not clear whether the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied, use {{music-importance}} at first, instead of straightaway marking the article for deletion; and mercilessly edit any non-neutral text. For company advertising, the advertisements are usually copyrighted by the company, and can thus have Copyright Judo applied to them, which uses a company's own legal department against it. User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage discusses several more things to do on New Page Patrol. Uncle G 11:47:18, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Yet another delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (when suspected sockpuppet votes are removed. NONE of the Keep vote are from established Wikipedians). JamesTeterenko 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Previewseek

• Keep The metasearch engine is unique in its technologies and is worthy of attention. Vote by User:217.43.154.52 (forgot to sign)

• Delete. Advertising. Not notable. User User:217.43.154.52 is adding this company all over related articles. --84.48.119.171 08:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. It does look like the author of this article is promoting it too enthusiastically on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of an article.-gadfium 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It hasn't even been public for a month. Let's give it time to establish itself. --Several Times 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it becomes notable. —thames 18:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising for non-notable company. --Carnildo 22:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep qwm 16:19, 18 August 2005
• Keep knk003 16:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Gadfium.
• Keep. sciencejournalist 08:33, 19 August 2005 This is most definitely a notable search engine. It is already becoming the default search engine of choice within the journalist community.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bándérász Csengery

Vanity page by previous vanity poster who has other posts on vfd. Google for "stage name" returns no hits. Usrnme h8er 08:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. —thames 18:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. The picture always gives it away. --Etacar11 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity indeed! Actually, Google does return 1 hit (apart from this very page): a deleted wp article on the guy's girlfriend... — Hillel 11:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TriggerBliss

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 09:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —thames 18:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 100% band vanity, 0% encyclopedic, 9 hits on Google. — Hillel 10:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic Criminals

Redundant with categories. If something like this is to exist at all, it should be like Category:Criminals by nationality. There is nothing principally wrong with organizing criminals by their religion, despite the obvious potential for abusive and frivolous entries, but the added value seems too questionable to warrant it. On the positive side of the relevance scale, you could consider a list of criminals subject to parental abuse. On the negative side, consider list of Catholic investment bankers. This list does not mention how their religion was relevant to the crimes committed by the people on it, because it usually simply wasn't. Weighing costs and benefits, I'd say delete it. JRM · Talk 09:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There may be a gray area between clearly appropriate list articles and clearly inappropriate ones, but I don't think this inhabits that space. The topic lends itself too easily to ugly wars between editors, and it isn't useful enough to make up for that. Add to that the difficulty in deciding who counts as Catholic and what counts as a crime (Nelson Mandela, for example, counts as a criminal according to one standard definition, but I'm sure all of us would be appalled to see him listed next to serial killers, rapists, and embezzlers). Jwrosenzweig 09:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the topic is inappropriate, not because of a conflict with categories. Zoe 09:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : Criminals categorized based on nationality is reasonable because the criminals often operate in certain geographical areas so geographical categorization is okay by me. However, categorization based on nuances of faith is like "Criminals with a tattoo on the left arm". This seems arbitrary as catholic criminals affect everyone, not just catholics. Manik Raina 09:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I realize now the category remark is way off. Actually this would be exactly what you'd use a list for, since lists have ways of annotating entries and categories don't. However, my original reasoning stands: without (sufficient) redeeming value. I don't agree with Zoe that the topic is inappropriate, though; it's too easy to condemn articles based on that. JRM · Talk 09:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bebe Rebozo wasn't even a criminal. POV list to attack the Catholic church. David | Talk 09:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - at least borderline POV. Listing a criminal under religious definition is irrelevant unless he states religion as his main motivation (and even then, they may use it as an excuse). At the very least, they did not follow the commandments of the religion. There were also several gangsters who were supposedly practicing Jews, but I would not regard list of Jewish criminals as a good idea - Skysmith 10:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - or will we have a list of Jewish/Islamic/Methodist/Agnostic/Atheist ect - if we had a list of people prominent because of their faith who were convicted of crimes - I could see the point, but in most cases here faith is incidental to the criminality - we might as well have a List of big-nosed criminals --Doc (?) 12:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  List of criminals with "nose" in their nickname? :-) JRM · Talk 12:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps List of criminals racked with guilt, or List of criminals who blame it all on their mothers? I'd quite like to start List of criminals whose crimes were never detected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Ah, list of perfect murders? That would make for a fascinating read. JRM · Talk 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any single List of [insert your favorite religion/sexual orientation/political party here] is relatively harmless. However, the information, unless the listing criterion is tied to the individuals listed in some substantive way, just doesn't belong in any encyclopedia. Information about any individual's religion, politics, etc. isn't encyclopedic, unless that information is part of what makes that person notable, a la Jerry Falwell and the like. It just doesn't matter that, for example, Cordwainer Smith was a non-observant Anglican, because it doesn't say anything about the man. And the same is true of almost everyone on every List of X here, where X is any label by which people have conventionally divided into "us" and "them". Ken ^{talk|contribs} 13:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inappropriate, and a copy-cat disruption magnet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, inappropriate, etc. ral315 14:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A little history: I nominated the comprehensive list of Catholics for being overly broad: Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics. The article was kept, but many wanted to break it up into smaller articles. This article was a section of List of Roman Catholics, and was recently split off into a separate article, as were many other sections. If it gets deleted it will just be returned as a section of the original article. We might as well keep the smaller lists, but in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter, the information will end up somewhere. It feels like we are going back and forth on this issue. NoSeptember 14:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Not a good reason to keep this list. Delete it, and delete mention of it from the larger list. Personally, I'd have deleted the whole list of RC's - but there's no consensus there. --Doc (?) 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Well I nominated the whole RC list (categories would do I thought), but if the community says keep it, we shouldn't pick and choose which sections to keep or throw away. None of the new smaller articles list people who are notable in their field because they are Catholics, they just list people in job X who happen to be Catholics. There is nothing inherently wrong with a list of criminals of a certain faith, as long as it is made clear that they are notable for their criminality, and not because of their faith. NoSeptember 15:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  If the list is of people whose criminality and religion have nothing to do with each other, and who weren't notable for their religion, what purpose does it serve? That would make it no more informative than "criminals who worked in hardware stores" or "left-handed criminals" or "criminals between 6 and 7 feet tall". Isomorphic 03:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  This is part of the broader discussion on what lists should and shouldn't be doing, and you're quite right that there's no consensus on that. For the record, I would agree with deleting this information from the main article too, as my original arguments apply regardless of where this list is. This is a matter of opinion, yes, as it boils down to "relevance" again, that old bugaboo we can't ever seem to get consensus about, especially when it comes to lists. If Wikipedia contains all "information" there is to contain, it will be less useful simply by virtue of being indiscriminate. If on the other hand it's picky people will complain what it's picky about, as any piece of information will be useful to someone. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jews.
  A lot of support for deletion of this article is of course more a result of the "OMG POV/vandal magnet" angle than the relevance angle, and there is something to say for that, too. "A criminal who also happened to be a Roman Catholic" is not the first image that springs to mind for "list of Catholic criminals"; rather you'd think "list of criminals notable for being Catholic", a dubious concept to say the least. JRM · Talk 15:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclo. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reason I voted to delete the RC actors: This is not just some small nationality or a minority somewhere, but the majority religion of the Americas and large parts of Europe, as well as a prominent minority in many other countries in the world. Unless you want to probe into every individual's faith, this would include almost every criminal from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, (Republic of) Ireland, large parts of Germany etc. Unmaintainable and ridiculous. Uppland 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This list is probably more intriguing than writers', politicians' etc. lists. Anyway- this "lists stuff" has been debated ad nauseam. I don't see the reason for this delete-obsession since you got criminals and other unpleasant people on Jewish & other lists. Mir Harven 17:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete the list itself admits the persons contained therein are not notable for being Catholic.--Tim Pope 08:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This list is a valid list and should be kept! But if people want to pretend that Catholics do no crimes?! Dwain 12:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This will be of interest to people and is not inflamatory in any way. Doohickey 16:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you look at the page's edit history, you'll see I was about to put this up for deletion, but I changed my mind when I couldn't figure out how to make my case for deleting it. Bottom line is, I think Wikipedia would be better off without this page. Too little benefit and too much room for abuse. Only reason I can imagine people using this list is for flaming and abuse. Coffee 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia already has lots of useless lists, but most of them aren't blatantly offensive. Rast 20:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This list isn't offensive at all (anyway- the people who made it are , I'd say, Catholics themselves). It just enumerates various sorts of people that were or are nominally Catholic. For instance, along with painters, writers, criminals, politicians,..other lists will have appeared (natural scientists will be broken into mathematicians, physicists, chemists,..., adventurers will be expanded to include explorers like Columbus, royalty list (list including links to royal houses of Europe etc.). This "criminals list" is just one among others and is here for information and fun. Mir Harven 09:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of people who are criminally catholic (which may redirect to The Pope). --francis 21:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I tend to err on the side of Keep, but see no merit here as articulated above --M-filecastle 06:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 1800's criminal is 2004's activist. gren グレン 12:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Binary words for pattern recognition

I'm not really sure what this is, but it looks like original research. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Zoe 09:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Essay. It's not original research, everything in the article is existing knowledge (though sometimes very obtusely worded). The style is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, though. Those interested can check out binary numeral system, which (together with its linked articles) probably has everything this article is trying to talk about. The author may be interested in Wikibooks instead. JRM · Talk 09:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Rereading it, some of it might be original research. I can't make sense of a lot of it, so it's hard to tell. JRM · Talk 09:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The same information is presented elsewhere, in a much more readable form. Much of it makes no sense. ManoaChild 09:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. android79 10:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of substance. Doesn't explain how the ideas are actually used. Gazpacho 16:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tabcrawler

This is a musical tablature website. However, WP:NOT a webdirectory, and I don't see how this site is particularly encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 09:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 16:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and Alexa rank of 30,500 or so. -Splash 19:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by JYolkowski. Closing. Essjay · Talk 03:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gullibalise

neologism and advertising

• Delete for reasons listed above BrainyBroad 10:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self admitted neologism. ManoaChild 10:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I can't make any sense of it. Manik Raina 10:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More or less a nonsense neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy patent nonsense --Doc (?) 12:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism dic-def. And mis-spelled, at that. It should be "gulliblize", or maybe "gulliblate". -- Plutor 14:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not at all. This would be the British English spelling. :) Splash 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• I speedied it as nonsense and as a short article lacking context. Hope no-one objects... JYolkowski // talk 01:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babu Yadati

Vanity, self promotion, not prominent, only 1 google hit (here)Manik Raina 11:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, reads like a resume header. Excerpt: He possesses incorrigible optimism and has a strong desire to get the best out of the team. How do people write this stuff? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Beats me.
• Delete as vanity. Imagine if he got hired off Wikipedia, though. That would be something. --Several Times 13:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/cvcruft. --Etacar11 01:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I wouldn't call it vanity. It's a resume. — Hillel 11:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REVERSE MERGE Fireball (sailboat) into this article. Already done. -Splash 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fireball (dinghy)

There is already a Fireball (sailboat) article. Maybe the sailboat link should be on the Fireball article. 67.160.63.141 11:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Fireball (sailboat). Clearly the best option IMO. --Apyule 15:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep RJH was right, I have done the merge / redirect. --Apyule 15:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Problem is that, while Fireball (sailboat) is more complete, the Fireball (dinghy) page is linked into the {{International Dinghies}} template, so it is linked in a lot of places. The Fireball is among the class of the dinghy, so it might make more sense to merge/redirect the "sailboat" article into the "dinghy" article. So my vote is to keep. — RJH 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aljuneidi

Claims to be a novelist, but Google cannot find him. Unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• CSD No evidence that he exists. --Apyule 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Unverifiable. Zero hits on Google or amazon for that name Tonywalton 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Unverifiability is not a reason for CSD. This article is a fair example why - Googling for a transliteration will almost always fail. (If he actually happens to exist, this article is an excellent example why.) Plain old regular slow delete unless verified. —Cryptic (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair point Tonywalton 17:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Amazon doesn't find him either, and they usually list even non-English author's who have anything published.-Splash 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 01:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saudipak Commercial Bank

As a matter of VfD closing policy, I'm referring back to VfD all deletion discussions that get three votes or fewer including that of the nominator. This discussion will run for another five days, until August 15. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no such bank in Saudi Arabia. You can check List of companies in Saudi Arabia, or http://www.tadawul.com.sa for list of all companies (though the Wikipedia list is not complete yet). The article was nonsense at its beginning and then somehow transformed into inaccurate information. That's about it. -- Eagle^amn 04:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it seems there is or was a bank with this name in Pakistan [7], so the information currently in the article is not worth keeping, since it seems to be wrong. —PrologFan {Talk} 19:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The bank does exist ([8]) in Pakistan, but Saudi Pak is two words, not one, so it'd have to move anyway. Even if it were moved, it's a pretty stubby stub, especially given its inaccuracy.... if someone is inspired to write a Saudi Pak Commercial Bank article, let 'em knock themselves out, but this article isn't enough to save itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2005
• Delete. Three unanimous delete votes is safe to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and also agree with Sjakkalle. Many people already feel that VfD is getting increasingly long and hard to use, no need to bog it down with articles that have unanimus consensus but a small number of votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it's the right thing to do. I would have discounted two of the votes in any case because their accounts are just short of one of the suffrage limits I set--one month since first edit. That would leave only the nominator. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is the right thing to do in the case of very few votes indeed, particularly if they are divergent. But unanimity is unanimity whichever way we read it. -Splash 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just to insure we reach your limits, although they strike me as a little high. --Icelight 18:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Splash 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary, whatever I do with the tricky vote. -Splash 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sielu

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not a Finnish to English dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• No, but Wiktionary is. Transwiki. —Cryptic (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. feydey 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete. --213.138.128.13 10:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, transwiki. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Bradshaw (stage magician)

Appears to be a stage magician promoting some sort of straitjacket-escape act. Ghakko 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after verification (which I just did; everything here seems to be true. The picture needs to go, though.) --Several Times 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why get rid of the picture? It seems very appropriate to the article, at least to me. Meelar (talk) 13:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's totally appropriate, except for its indefinite copyright status. --Several Times 14:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Because there's no evidence that it is in the public domain (that is, is not copyright). Keep, less the potential copyvio Tonywalton 15:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • In my defense, it was fairly early when I wrote that. You're right, the pic should be treated the same as any other likely-copyrighted image. Meelar (talk) 19:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Essjay · Talk 03:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almech

Article is on an Indian equipment manufacturing company whose listed website has barely broken 200600 hits. Their listed amazon.com popularity graph only states that they are "Not in top 100,000". Seems to be utterly non-notable, an attempt at promotion. Strong delete. jglc | t | c 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, page blanked by creator. --Several Times 13:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Advertising --Apyule 15:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Starblind Closing. -- Essjay · Talk 03:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halaliel, Archangel of Mercy and Guardian of the Path

Any article which begins this … should not be changed by anyone other than myself invites immediate action. A massive personal rant by someone who thinks he is an archangel. No encyclopedic content. -- RHaworth 13:12:07, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

• Wow. That's quite a bit of ranting. Delete it before it spreads. --Several Times 13:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy. Given its extreme length and equally extreme incoherence, it could probably be speedied as either nonsense or vandalism. Certainly not an attempt at an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination, nor could it be turned into one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further note: considering the "This is a book authors note it should not be changed by anyone other than myself" part, it could be reasonably deduced that the author didn't fully understand the aspects of the GDFL they were getting themselves into by posting. This would bring it into copyvio territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily, as nonsense. Tonywalton 15:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense, though I was tempted to suggest a Transwiki to Wikibooks, as this is a marvelous work of abstract fiction. I fixed the spaces at the beginnings of many paragraphs to increase readability. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Dysepsion 17:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Kill it with Fire, speedily if possible. This is, quite simply, the weirdest thing I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. Not encyclopedic, irredeemably POV, unverifiable, nonsensical, and an attempt to communicate, all in one. android79 17:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You missed Vanity, Android. The guy is claiming to be an archangel. At least he isn't promoting a website.... Tonywalton 17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not technically vanity since the guy actually believes he is an archangel. ;-) android79 17:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Crucify --Doc (?) 18:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, with 5 explicit speedy votes, 3 deletes that could be interpreted as speedy votes, and zero keeps, I consider this enough consensus to speedy it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of self-proclaimed deities. Or just Delete. Allegrorondo 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NETWORK IDENTITY MANAGER

Blatant advertising. --malathion ^talk 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, page blanked by creator. --Several Times 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep could be worth it to clean up or make a stub. Only has 3 google hits though. --WolFox 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam/ad. --Etacar11 01:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. DS1953 04:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was tag as copyvio. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Lemarchand

This article is a direct copy, not just an except of the following website: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/hillcrest/76/hellraiser/lemarchard-history.html It should either be re-edited with original user content or deleted completely. Copyright issues may be of concern as well. LifeStar 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• You're looking for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 13:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Page has been tagged as copyvio; thanks for the heads up! --Alan Au 21:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Password Card

Ad. NN. Unencyclopedic. What more do you need? Mmmbeer 13:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Plainly an advertisement, and of virtually no encyclopedic value Plasma 13:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Several Times 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe in a few years, if this company's patent expires and these things become more well-known, it might be able to be re-written from a more encyclopedic point of view, but, for the time being, it simply doesn't belong here.--Frag 15:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. DS1953 04:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carleton Level Crossing

It seems to be accepted that every UK railway station, however small, qualifies for an article. But level crossings do not qualify. There is nothing notable about this one. -- RHaworth 13:58:34, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It doesn't explicitly violate any wikipedia policy, and has attracted some interest over its short life. I don't see what we gain by deleting it. --Apyule 15:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence as to why this level crossing is notable. Sliggy 15:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim to notability. Level crossingcruft. Sdedeo 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice verifiable piece of infrastructure. Failing that merge with the line or something. Kappa 16:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I am distinctly unconvinced that this article is notable and keeping it will create bad precedent. -D. Wu 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per D. Wu. --Tim Pope 17:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep level crossings are notable and not very common Towel401 17:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete level-crossings notable? Uh, no. -Splash 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but put the photos in an article about the line or something. Meelar (talk) 19:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Both photos are already used in two other places. -- RHaworth 01:38:03, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Delete impressively, incredibly, non-notable CDC (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm getting worried that in five years we'll be debating whether or not individual telephone poles are notable "it's a nice, verifiable part of the energy grid". --Scimitar ^parley 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I sometimes have nightmares about that, Scimitar Soltak 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Scimitar DES ^(talk) 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Scimitar. What's next, List of Junctions on the B5405 road? Sabine's Sunbird 22:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What next, road intersections? --Carnildo 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Too late we've got at least four - see Spaghetti Junction. -- RHaworth 01:35:48, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Locally this would be notable (I speak from experience, I used to live in Poulton-le-Fylde) as it is, as the article says, the only crossing in the area. Indeed, I recognised it purely from the name, despute the fact that there must be other Carletons with (notional) crossings of one sort or another. Keep as searchable geographic stub. Scope for new article addressing the history and current state of the hamlet of Carleton itself (but not by me, as I now live in London) --Simon Cursitor 07:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Utterly, utterly awful idea. Delete. Proto t c 10:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless the control tower in the photos are unique to British railroad crossings (never seen one like that in the States!), then it's just another railroad crossing. Gates come down, lights flash, bells ring, train passes. I love trains and I've written railroad-related articles but this doesn't ring the (crossing) bell. - Lucky 6.9 23:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Lucky 6.9. DS1953 04:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Human rights in Brazil. Already done. The only sensible redirect, however, is to Human rights. I think this satisfies the GFDL since any editor could redirect this anywhere they liked at any time, and the authorship is still retained. -Splash 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law & human rights

I think the content here does not warrant for a separate article. I suggest that the text be merged with the main article of Brazil and the Law & human rights article be deleted. Besides, "Law & human rights" is highly inaccurate (or rather, too general) since the article is only about Brazil. There may also be neutrality / factual accuracy issues here due to the lack of sources but I won't argue about this since I know nothing of Brazil's prisons. --F. Delpierre 14:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I would possibly change my mind if the article was completely redone to talk about the general relationship though. --Apyule 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But if it was deleted, one could always restart it and write something like what you said. I say better delete it now and let what you said happen if someone ever decides to make it happen. The existing content should probably still be kept and moved somewhere, provided it's checked for factual accuracy and backed by some kind of source. --F. Delpierre 17:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for a merge to Human rights in Brazil, and redirect to Human rights. Gazpacho 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep & merged Update. ok I have now removed the original and put it in the Human rights in Brazil page, with a reference from Brazil, I hope this helps, clearly the page for Human rights in Brazil needs further work, so at some stage soon I will try to improve it. I agree the original entry needed change, hopefully others will feel it's now ok, author of the page,rastrudwick 12:05, 11 August 2005 (GMT)

• Merge to Human rights in Brazil since it only deals with Brazil Barneygumble

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Percent SIP PBX ; sipXpbx

This is not an article name for an encyclopedia. The information in this article is to be integrated into the appropriately named article SipX. A redirect is inappropriate because no articles link to this one and no one is going to type in the above name in the search box.

• Delete Agree with the above. --Apyule 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree. --Atari2600tim 09:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Islam

To line up proofs/critic against one of the worlds largest religions is not fitting for an encyclopedia. Delete. Apparantly, according to the article's creator, this isn't a recreation of the VFD'd Criticism of Islam, which was a POV fork of Islamophobia. I'm not convinced.

• Delete This topic is an insult to muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.188.182.14 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 August 2005

  Only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup The topic is actually quite legit, though the article needs some major tidying up. "Islamophobia" deserved to be deleted, as that term is incorrect, but, now that it has been placed under a more correct name, I think we should give it a chance.--Frag 14:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Islamophobia should be merged to this article? (i.e. a "merge" vote) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia has not moved anywhere, and is not related to this VfD. --Zeno of Elea 17:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to refer to Criticism of Islam and not Islamophobia --Frag 20:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake was due to the fact that the original version of the nomination read "that this isn't a recreation of Islamophobia, which was VFDed previously." When he corrected his mistake, my vote then appeared to be incorrectly referring to articles. I apologize. --Frag

• Close VfD - this is right on the heels of VfD of Criticism of Islam... which this is basically a part of... and, well I'd probably vote keep then but this VfD now is only going to cause problems. gren グレン 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Either this article is the same as Criticism of Islam, in which case it is recreation of VFD'd content and should be speedy deleted. Or it is new content, which has not been VFD'd before, and thus the VFD can't be prematurely closed. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * )

It is new content same concept. Eh, it's not like I'll ever oppose this concept in itself... just sometimes when it has horrible content. changing vote... Keep ... Ril, do you think that this as a concept should not exist?gren グレン 10:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But the concept is already discussed at Islamophobia for which this constitutes a POV fork. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Zeno of Elea 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course. -- Karl Meier 17:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this doesn't look like a POV fork of Islamophobia or an NPOV fork for that matter. The subject matter is completely different. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Keep nothing wrong with opposition to islam Towel401 17:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see what is wrong with it. It seems completely unrelated to Islamophobia. Barneygumble 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. dab (ᛏ) 20:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP We are a free thinking world and must remain so regardless of opposition from radical extremists

unsigned edit by 82.148.43.93 (zero prior edits) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ObsidianOrder 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — encyclopedic. — RJH 16:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a lot of work (where is zoroastrian & sassanid resistance to islamic cultural incursion, for example), but the topic is entirely legit. Dottore So 20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

user has only 36 prior edits (several are to Strawman) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There's nothing wrong with it. [BWK] 19:08, August 12, 2005

Unsigned by User:194.203.153.209, who has only 6 prior edits ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable and informative. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 21:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For a balanced discussion on all religions we would have to add similar articles for other religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahaism etc. It would be better to disperse the contents of this article to other related articles. Currently the only other article similar to one is Criticism of Mormanism.

unsigned edit by 129.21.175.241 who has 2 prior edits~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Useful. Good reference --219.111.147.48 04:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

user has only 5 prior edits ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Because no one should be allowed to say bad things about ISLAM.

unsigned edit by strawman 210.49.202.35 who has zero prior edits ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It would be absurd to delete this. —thames 02:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A good, balanced article. ProhibitOnions 17:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This looks like it's straight out of some polemical site.
• DELETE!!!! the site dont seeme to fit in a encyclpedia
• DELETE, its not fitting to have these votes and it is oppressing to the muslims.

GOSH, there are an awfully large number of strawman sockpuppets aren't there. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Unless you want to delete Islamophobia along with this article. Brownman40 00:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this article at all. Marskell 12:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV-trap, and only legit if we have also articles on "Opposition to Christianity", "Opposition to Hinduism" etcpp. Until we have, this smells badly like a part of the "Islamophobia" edit war. -- AlexR 01:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think it deserves deletion at all. Criticism of any religion should be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.229.162 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 August 2005

  Nine previous edits from this address. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Dan | Talk 17:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The lack of such articles for other religions is irrelevant. People are free to add them if they feel the need/desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.199.131 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 August 2005

  Only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a magnet for Islamophobes (just as this VfD is a magnet for sock-puppets and oddballs, on both sides). There's nothing in the article that couldn't be either deleted as PoV or included in less tendentious articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The existense of criticism of any religion or ideology can be a relevant topic. Wikipedia's coverage of Islam would be lacking were this facet not part of the broader coverage. Jsnell 22:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Edit Requests

Page is not a Wikipedia policy, but the creation of a slightly overzealous youth. I see little reason for a page whose purpose is to "Put something up here, however, and an Administrator might make the change for you and all the other Wikipedians," especially when there is no evidence that any administrators would ever look at the page. There are always the Talk pages of administrators, in any case, for requests. Strong delete. jglc | t | c 14:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The creator of the article placed a cleanup tag on it. jglc | t | c 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep maybe not the best wp-space proposal I've seen, but far from being the worst, either. Let's keep it and give it a chance to succeed or fail on its own. It's only been around since yesterday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Andrew.--Frag 15:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems early to delete this as a failure. No inherent problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:05, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 W. Already done. Although I voted, I don't think I have a conflict of interest here given the voting and the fact that the merge was carried out prior to my vote. -Splash 01:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] w/

This is just a simple slang dictionary entry, and a similar definition can be found already at Wiktionary. There's no real signficance of the abbreviation that earns it the right to have its own article. Frag 14:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• delete Doesn't belong here. --Apyule 15:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC) After BD2412's changes, I'll change my vote to redirect. --Apyule 00:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to "W", where I've just added this tidbit of information. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as per BD2412. Also, it's not really slang, and it's definitely not "Internet slang". It long predates the Internet. -- Plutor 16:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per BD2412, and reiterate that it's a pretty well established shorthand that has not been created by the internet. -Splash 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buku

Foreign language dicdef already in Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Good deal. -D. Wu 16:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Splash 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.�Encephalon | ζ | Σ 19:36:05, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Delete. per the proposal --Cje 17:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JamesTeterenko 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of countryies by population (graphical)

Not only is the word "countryies" misspelled, but all of the information it provides can also be found at List of countries by population. Frag 15:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Reasons as above. Zaw061 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Dude, I just started working on this an hour ago. It's still a work in progress. Give it a little bit of time, eh? It's a lot more complete now than when you listed it, and I've changed the name. As for the info, yes, the info is also available in List of countries by population (as the page itself states), but I thought having a graphical veiw would be helpful for people to visualize the data. Do you think this sort of work should be discouraged? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, note the article List of popes (graphical). It contains only information that is also in List of popes, but it shows the data graphically - and it's a Featured List! I don't understand why anyone would want to delete these sorts of articles. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if you've changed the name, the original "countryies" article will still be there, and there's no reason to keep it then, regardless. ;)--Frag 15:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then it should be listed on WP:RFD, not here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I listed this here before knowing said information. ;) --Frag 16:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Is it just going to include those three charts? If so, I recommend a merge. If you're planning to expand it further, I say Keep and move to a better name, such as Chart of countries by population since it's definitely not a list anymore, is it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note List of popes and List of popes (graphical). I was simply trying to use the naming convention that was used for a featured list. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Can timelines be made to float right? There's a whole lot of blank space on the right two thirds of List of countries by population. —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • They can, but these timelines are 600px wide, and shrinking them makes them hard to read. That's why I put them in a separate page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I suppose I've been spoiled by my large display. Keep, by the way. —Cryptic (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fun for all the family. - Randwicked 15:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep graphical content is a weakness of Wikipedia so let's not discourage those who are willing to put in the spade work. However the current title is not acceptable as the article covers the EU, so I've slapped a neutrality-disputed notice on it. That can go if it survives as the article can then be moved to Graphical list of countries and other entities by population. Osomec 15:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll want to add one to List of countries by population too, then. —Cryptic (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the obvious reasons stated above. Secretlondon 15:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As countries' populations are non-static, is this information going to be regularly updated? Sliggy 16:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Like everything in Wikipedia, only if you (or someone else) updates it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair point, keep. Sliggy 17:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I quite like this. It will need regular updating, but we should be able to rely on the wikiprinciple to do that. Why does it have a factual accuracy dispute tag on it? It's very tiresome. -Splash 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it is titled "countries" (modulo the typo) but has an entry for the European Union, which isn't a country (I assume that was Osomec putting a "factual" tag rather than a "neutrality" tag on). Keep, by the way. Tonywalton 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A useful list and well-done to Quaddell for his work so far. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep up the good work Quadell! I can see how, with the original title, it may have seemed appropriate for VfD, however. The factual accuracy tag... well I see what you mean listing the EU under an article titled "countries", but it's interesting to include for comparisons, and changing the title would make it a lil long winded. This can be discussed further on the articles talk page, tho. UkPaolo 19:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does the UN have certain benchmarks for population numbers? Otherwise, sorting country populations in ranges like "Over 500 M" and "50M to 500M" is very arbritrary to say the least. At least create some bin widths that reflect the number of countries present. --Madchester 22:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight - you're voting to delete the article because grouping countries by size is "arbitrary"? That's a rather odd outlook. By the way, a put the articles in three groups, because if they were all in one group with a standard scale along the bottom, most bars would be so small that they would be nearly invisible. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. You should be creating charts that are of equal interval sizes, say every hundred million or every five hundred million. Right now, the presentation is skewed, b/c it's set at an arbritrary scale that you decided was convenient. One grouping contains samples with pops less than 50 M, and another contains a much larger interval, between 50-500 M. It just doesn't make sense. I recommend that or creating charts for each continent.

Before asthetics, the presentation of the material needs to be statistically relevant. --Madchester 02:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • If you can think of a way the data can be better presented, you're welcome to make your own charts. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. I think if you tried it yourself, though, instead of just criticizing the efforts of others, you'd find that separating them into sections with equal numbers of countries would leave many countries with bars so small as to be uninformative. But be my guest. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good, needs some work but that's no reason to throw it out. Sabine's Sunbird 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A misspelled title is not grounds for deletion, just moving. Template:Sofixit (Another opportunity to use my favourite template!) CanadianCaesar 22:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I agree with the point about the "List" of Popes (graphical). If this is a "Chart" (which I suppose it is) then so's that. The EU bit needs sorting out though - Voted above Tonywalton 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's really put me in a foul mood that three different users want to delete an article I spent over an hour creating, and that I've had to spend time defending it. If we want to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia, this deletionist attitude isn't the way to do it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I know. Not even an article like Self-induced abortion is safe from VfD. No votes to delete that one outside the nominator, but what a waste of the creator's time. CanadianCaesar 00:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't be disheartened, Quadell! It is clear that the article took considerable effort, and I'm sure will survive VfD. UkPaolo 17:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hurt feelings aside, Madchester makes a very good point that should be addressed. Dottore So 21:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I agree with how Quadell has used a different scale for different charts so that the population differences are highlighted. DS1953 05:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and rename of course). Encyclopedic enough, and quite well done. — Hillel 11:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well made and useful. 13:04, August 17, 2005
• Comment - It's been over a week. The consensus is to keep. Can this vote be removed from the page? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 17:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the graph is nice, but I don't understand why it has to be a standalone article. Why not merge it into List of countries by population? Niteowlneils 21:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. However, the article should be improved and worked on. --*drew 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bampot

Slang dicdef; Wiktionary already has an entry. I don't think a redirect from here would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. simple dicdef. Zaw061 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -D. Wu 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dying To Live

Totally non-notable skateboard video. Searching Google for "Dying to live" "Zero Skateboards" results in a resounding 300 or so hits. Delete. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 15:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, 6,990 google hits [9] Kappa 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 6,990 google hits for the phrase "dying to live". But not a single one on the first page of Google's results is for that video. There is one return at the bottom of the second page, one on the third, one on the fourth, and so on. Most of the others point to the lyrics of a song called "Runnin' (Dying to Live)" by famous dead rapist Tupac Shakur.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What? Kappa 23:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think that what Ashley means is that when you subtract out all the hits for Tupac Shakur, you're left with only a few hits. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Um 3,750 hits is still a lot, and that happen because you added + to "shakeboard", not because you took out the tupac hits. Kappa 00:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete Google hits aside, this does not merit encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 21:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this less encylopedic that an album or a television episode? Kappa 22:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- JamesTeterenko 16:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Hill

Advertising. DS 15:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. open and shut advertising case PTSE 15:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/vanity. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 15:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Busty vanity. Malo 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in all the right places. --Several Times 19:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and ad. --Etacar11 01:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DS1953 05:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trialclix

Pure advertising spam. Note the "referrer id" in the link, trying to score money off of wikipedia clicks. Nandesuka 15:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I removed the referrer ID on general principles. See article history for details. --Nandesuka 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 15:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Malo 17:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Several Times 19:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. DS1953 05:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to XXL (magazine). -Splash 01:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elliot Wilson

Fifteen-year-old boy claiming to be a famous rapper and musician, "although (the band) only has played school gigs". Well, at least he actually has a band, which is more than a lot of band-vanity articles can say. DS 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page for thirteen (not fifteen) year old "band leader". Ken ^{talk|contribs} 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Switch me to redirect. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And if he wants to be big in Latino Rap he should probably start learning to spell Señor. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to XXL (magazine). There actually is a notable person in hip hop named Elliot Wilson, but it's not this kid. It's the editor-in-chief of XXL Magazine, one of the most notable hip-hop magazines in the U.S. --FuriousFreddy 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Furious Freddy. Capitalistroadster 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Furious Freddy. Hall Monitor 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. ral315 22:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Etacar11 01:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Furious Freddy. However, the XXL editor's first name is spelled Elliott. --Metropolitan90 01:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canning how-to

Belongs in Wikibooks or elsewhere; how-tos don't belong here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a subject for VfD; it should just be transwikied to Wikibooks. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 18:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe, if it were actually anything resembling a complete how-to on canning; the article was started in April 2004, and has barely been touched since; it contains very little useful information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to. -Splash 18:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and it's not worth the effort to transwiki. --Carnildo 23:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. The cookbook doesn't seem to have a module on canning, and this would make a fine start for one. Contrary to popular belief, there's almost no effort involved in the actual act of transwikiing, just some monotony (which I'll be perfectly happy to deal with myself). The huge backlogs in the {{move to X}} categories are a combination of doubt whether the tagged articles are appropriate for the target projects, and the effort of figuring out what to do with the articles after they've been transwikied. —Cryptic (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Cryptic said it quite succinctly. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous numbers

Entirely subjective, can't ever really be completed, and doesn't have any info that isn't in the separate entries for each number on the list already. DS 16:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Subjective/POV. WMMartin 16:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Author forgot to list "3" - I mean, come on now, 3 is definitely a famous number - everyone's heard of it! -- BD2412 ^talk 17:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what no lucky number 7? --- Malo 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 18:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Significant numbers in popular culture. Gateman1997 18:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Whose popular culture? British? Indonesian?Delete.Ashley Pomeroy 22:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, as per Gateman.--Frag 18:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subjective, Insane, Unmaintainable, Infinitely long, More calories than regular Dr. Pepper, etc. Preczewski 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's obviously misnamed because no number can be really 'famous'. I wouldn't be against a List of numbers with mathematical significance or List of numbers which have Biblical significance but I don't think it's possible to lump them all together and make a useful encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 18:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All numbers have mathematical significance. We don't have room for such a list because Wikipedia is not infinite. Uncle G 21:19:32, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of numbers such as e, Pi, the Golden ratio and such like. David | Talk 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintanable, POV, unencyclopedic. -Splash 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• A list that is redundant with List of numbers#Notable_integers. No need for a redirect, as this title is not worth retaining, since it is not the correct title for a list article anyway. Delete. Uncle G 21:19:32, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
• Redirect, remove present content. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When I saw this this morning I posted a comment in the talk. I was too lazy to VfD it though. Mmmbeer 22:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pimp goblet

Neologism. FuriousFreddy 16:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until it becomes widely used. —thames 18:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Hooper_X
• get rid of it this is not knowledge that furthers or promotes understanding of any relevant subject.;User:Jones 18:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This sounds like someone trying to spread a term he just made up. Luvcraft 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• No, seriously. The amount of knowledge the average Wikipedia user appears to have about hip-hop is comically negligible. -HX

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captain cockroach

"in the early stages right now" and "hopes to have him be internationally famous". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; come back in a few years, Captain Cockroach. DS 17:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete! Mis-spelled "copyright," which is just inexcusable! (also not notable) -- BD2412 ^talk 17:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thay should have misspelt "copyleft" anyway. Delete. Tonywalton 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Malo 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. If he weren't fiction, WP:CSD A7 would apply. --IByte 18:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 01:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. DS1953 05:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Diaz

not notable — J3ff 17:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —thames 18:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity --malathion ^talk 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/cvcruft. --Etacar11 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable/Vanity (Celcius 14:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Spangineer (háblame) 18:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuji Hoshi

All information seems fabricated, Google results just 16 hits Malo 17:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: WP:CSD A6/A7 --IByte 18:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stikman

keep

• Delete will change my vote if someone cleans this thing up big time. Grpunkim 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable cartoon. --Several Times 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn local, transitor, teenage cartoon flap. -Splash 19:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ral315 22:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, and what's with this 'not revealing its name' nonsense? (And although the spelling of the article is quite poor, I'm not about to change my vote after a cleanup; the subject is just inappropriate.) --IByte 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of Venona

This text belongs on VENONA project, not here. It should be merged into the VENONA project page - half of this is on that page already, such duplication makes no sense, and is two points for edit wars to erupt. I think the best vote is merge, then delete - if there is any material worth merging. Ruy Lopez 18:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is the beginning of a cooperative effort to remove names of persons identified within the Venona project from the main article; as stated, a proposal to remove references to identified persons within the main text, with the exception of the List of Americans named in Venona papers, with the full intention to spin that section off or merge it elsewhere once biographical information is completed. Persistent vandalism to the page, and an effort to politicize the subject has hindered understanding of its historical and cryptographical contributions. There is an active discussion on both Talk pages regarding a new editor expressing an interest in bringing significant contributions to the subject. nobs 18:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment "merge and delete" is incompatible with the GDFL, so it's "Merge and Redirect" or "Delete entirely, no Merge". --Icelight 20:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Care to explain that cryptic remark? Mirror Vax 16:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. VENONA project is becoming inordinately long and would itself be best if one article is left to describe the project and one to recount at greater length its implications for history as well as involved individuals and many researchers and commentators. Ruy Lopez is mainly irked at the prospect of having yet another article he must continually disrupt with pointless reversions. --TJive 22:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The Venona article is not particularly long. Mirror Vax 16:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not since this was made as well as the name list was moved by Ruy, contrary to his previous objections. --TJive 17:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not before either. Mirror Vax 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You don't find this as the base of an article with ongoing additions a bit excessive for one page? Okay.... --TJive 18:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article does not overlap significantly with the VENONA project page. It is reasonable to have multiple articles on an important project, to keep the page size manageable. ManoaChild 04:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The "significance" of something can be discussed in an article on that thing. Gamaliel 16:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel: This article is going to grow much larger than what it is, and will touch on a host of subsidiary subjects, foreign policy, revisionism, secrecy in government, partisan ideologies, hundreds of biographical pages, espionage, various wars and economic policies, governmental reforms within the NSA, CIA, FBI and host of other government bureaus and private enterprise. This article will take years to complete, if ever. The significance is being dilluted by stale partisan rhetoric. And the significance needs to be understood clearly. nobs 01:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nob01: you are only asking to be left alone while you rewrite the history of the CPUSA "as Venona". I believe that including the political/significance ramifications of Venona in the article itself will help ground your work in the larger narrative of the party. It may be messier for you, but there is no need to split. DJ Silverfish 15:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article on Venona is going to become far to large, might as well start splitting it up now. TDC 18:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I concur with TDC. As active editor I see the amount growing quickly. As the subject is also very contested, it is a good way to make sure that reverts, etc. stay localized and passages can be developed seperately. --Ebralph 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and once cooperation is gained as per my proposal Talk:VENONA_project#Proceedural_proposal, the crypotographers who have expressed interest in Venona can have the page back. nobs 21:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Significance of..." pages are just a less accountable way of introducing partisan material. Many have been created, but after consideration redirect back to the subject page (for example Significance of Jesus' resurrection). These pages are invitations to speechify without need to reference facts. Start a subsection in the Venona page on "politics of the..." and if it grows in a serious way to article length, split it off then. Now that the names have been separated, into a category, presumably, the original article isn't that long. DJ Silverfish 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are several aspects to the Venona materials; it has significant historic aspects to complete the picture of American history back to the 1930s at least (perhaps as far back as 1921); this is of nominal interest to a younger generation of persons interesting in further developing the field of cryptography. Splitting it off keeps the original art of cryptography clean, while the historic and political aspects can be examined elsewhere. nobs 19:41, 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 speedied by Geogre. —Cryptic (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Southwell

Tagged speedy for being completely false, I'm not sure. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete <drini ☎> 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Ben-w 18:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete —thames 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. For a start, I'll reckon there are at least several people who have performed in 20 orchestras! -Splash 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Heck, I've performed with over 20 orchestras, and I'm not notable. But made complete sonata and concerto recordings of the works of Liszt, Beethoven and Mozart ????? Impossible - this person is only 20. Unless he means on his personal tape recorder in the practice room. Allegrorondo 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google refers me to 718 hits, mainly for a guy who works for Trafassi. Hoax.--Scimitar ^parley 19:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - given i'm the one that tagged it for speedy deletion, the fact remains all of the info here if faked. Malo 21:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Not on Juilliard's faculty list [10] or Harvard's [11]—Wahoofive (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete - transparent hoax

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

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

The result of the debate wasDe-list, should be on CfD. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American Slaveholders

This is a trivial category. It should be, and already is, a list. Being a slaveholder, however repugnant today, was at some times in history extremely common and accepted; for most people at that time owning slaves was a footnote to their lives. If it was particularly relevant (e.g. Thomas Jefferson), it should be described in the person's page. If there is an actual desire to maintain a comprehensive list (which would be overwhelmingly difficult, IMO), it should be done as a list, not a category. Preczewski 18:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Midas 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Close this VFD immediately Deletion of categories should be discussed at CFD not VFD use the {{cfd}} tag. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delist - and let the nominator take it to CfD. See, even -Ril- can be right at times! --Doc (?) 21:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delist - as has been mentioned, this belongs in CFD, not here. I have my own comments on the matter but they belong elsewhere. Disclosure: I am the creator of the category. Radgeek 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machosexual

Delete Admits to being a neologism, and is a very minor one at that. Googling gives 22 unique hits (out of 52 total) which is far too low for a words that claims to be based in blogs and newsgroups. Unless evidence can be provided that this is more commonly used than that, this is nothing more than a switching prefixes with metrosexual. Icelight 18:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. <drini ☎> 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it becomes widely used. —thames 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Use it at parties and maybe someday it will be a real word. Until then... Preczewski 19:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Phroziac (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Osomec 08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SilverSide 08:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Klonimus/AINB

Welcome to the anti-idiotarian notice board. This notice board is established for the purpose of coordinating work on removing apologetics/political correctness ...

Organised POV pushing. Particularly concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Totally inappropriate.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very POV, but crackpots should be allowed POV in their own space, and should be allowed to coordinate their own efforts. Deleting users' own pages for unpopular opinions is nasty stuff.

unsigned edit by Preczewski (38 prior edits) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

POV shouldn't be co-ordinated whatsoever. See WP:NPOV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This user-space VfD campaign of User:-Ril-'s is becoming tiresome. -Splash 19:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If you're not allowed to be POV in your own bloody user space somebody better go tag User:Soltak/Views Soltak 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with expressing your own opinions in your user space. What is wrong is organising in your user space POV pushing in articles. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia:User page does not disallow this type of discussion. - Thatdog 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it says "material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed". POV pushing is contrary to the goal of NPOV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and try to discuss your issues with user, amicably. Failing that, take user to RfC. VfD is not for solving user disputes. dab (ᛏ) 20:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; someone should remove inflammatory wording and move to a more appropriate name. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony above. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Keep. A declared POV is better than stealth warring. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Query :: where, please, is the ~paedia policy statement on user pages, so that newbies like myself know what we can and cannot do with them, without being RfC'd by the Cabal ? --Simon Cursitor 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) No longer relevant. Novote --Simon Cursitor 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not part of the Cabal. There is no cabal. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a lot of POV stuff in user spaces (including one I looked at today that's being considered for admin). You can't selectively complain about NPOV in user spaces just because you disagree with what's written. BrainyBroad 09:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see that there is any basis for this vote. I think user-space pages should be subject to the same policy as comments on talk pages, i.e. unless they are a rampant personal attack you leave them the heck alone. Is there an actual policy on this? ObsidianOrder 10:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extreme POV (and I don't know if this is "extreme") is perfectly acceptable on userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User page is not the business of other users. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is just silly. --Briangotts (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do I get to vote. Klonimus 11:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course - I'm going to assume you aren't a sockpuppet and have over 200 edits to prove it. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Users can put whatever POV they want on Talk Pages or User Pages, as long as they don't break other Wikipedia policies. The word "Idiotarian" in itself is a Weasel Term for the word idiot, which if used against another member of the Wikipedia community would be a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, and since Klonimus is putting the actions of other user on this board, he is indirectly calling them idiots. Klonimus is a right wing POV pusher(if needed, I can give several examples), and he'll no doubt continue to do this in articles, but this is not an article. If Klonimus changes the name of this subproject, I will change my vote to Keep. Karmafist 18:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Appropriateness_of_VFD states: "The community is far more lenient towards what happens in the Wikipedia and User namespaces, allowing for such things as chess competitions in the former, and extreme POV in the latter. You should not nominate pages from either namespace unless you have a very strong case." {my emphasis} User:-Ril- has not stated a very strong case. I do not believe the AINB is necessarily POV (let alone extreme POV) either: "idiotarian" is pretty close to a synonym for "irrational POV", and hence AINB is an anti-POV project. I believe that this VfD is inappropriate based on that policy, and recommend that (a) the VfD be delisted immediately and/or (b) the page be kept regardless of VfD voting results. ObsidianOrder 11:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not the POV that bothers me. Its the pushing. If it wasn't for organising POV pushing (explicitely stated in the page, b.t.w.), and was just POV, I wouldn't have a problem with it. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, anti-Idiotarian refers to a specific POV (discussed at that article), and not a general "anti-irrational POV" but a "anti-what-certain-people-think-is-irrational POV", which is POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This may be somewhat similar to Sam Spade's "detective agency". If I recall correctly, that was frowned upon by many, but not deleted. If a user is seen to indulge in witch-hunting and bullying, it is a case of user conduct, and clearly WP:DR applies. I.e., you do not discuss what you perceive as a user behaving unconstructively on vfd. That's not saying your concerns are not legitimate (I don't know if they are), I am saying this is entirely the wrong channel to adress it. That would be like nominating talk pages for deletion because you don't like the way a discussion is going. dab (ᛏ) 06:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you do that without taking the article the talk pages are attached to with them? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GI got Owned

Forum-cruft of the most trivial sort. Several Times 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It makes me sad that anyone would consider a web forum thread from the past week encyclopedic. Gazpacho 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: that's what I said, too, but the claim of 500,000 hits would... hell, I dunno. Whatever. Delete.jglc | t | c 19:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's been speedy deleted at least three times. Half a million hits on a forum relating to Mazda automobiles? Puh-leeze. Agree with Gazpacho. Delete one way or another. - Lucky 6.9 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• In that case, Speedy again. This is worthless. Lomn 19:30:56, 2005-08-10 (UTC) (always forget sig)
• delete. Nelgallan 19:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible. Martg76 19:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero Google hits (the only ONE is for "Gi Gi Got Owned". Zoe 19:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Gazpacho one hundred percent. -- CMC 04:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Made me laugh. You have to like the justification: "Almost every single Internet forum currently references this pwnage." uh uh. Dottore So 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, As funny as it may be, who's really going to be looking for this on Wikipedia in the future?. 08:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forumcruft. --Pyroclastic 17:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is ridiculous and not encyclopedia-worthy. Plus it isn't even a real internet meme, these guys just go to random forums and post it, much to the confusion of the locals, in order to get their 200+ forums count.

Keep it. keep it. its become too well known to get rid of

• Keep GI is a real meme. If you haven't heard about the original "GI" or come across any of the spinoff activity you are probably not among the many that frequent forums and chatrooms. Like it or not Wikipedia is a great place to research internet memes. The article just needs a tweak or two.
• Keep This may be a way to actually post about this new fad as it happens. As a member of several online forums I can attest that this is more popular then any other thread I've ever come across and everyone I know who's active has seen it. This is no less an internet fad then AYB and deleting it would be ridiculous. http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117475 is a link to a forum selling shirts! AYB barely has shirts. Also, the forum it originated on is now up to 115 pages on the topic.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wehner blower and Charles Douglas Wehner

Wehner blower is nicely illustrated, well explained, but completely unnotable and most certainly original research. All Google hits to this term are to Wikipedia and to the inventor's homepage[12]. This is delete. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also for deletion his vanity page Charles Douglas Wehner. Same problem. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, non-notability. Also, check out the wacky Wehner's blisters: Melasma_suprarenale. Sdedeo
• Delete both, for the reason of insanity. Check out his website (delve into it). Hfwd 05:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to me the invention is notable though we don't seem to have described the Bunsen patent yet. Pumps without moving parts are extremely rare. My reading of original research would allow a working proven design? Rjstott (talk · contribs)

For those who are considering whether to keep the article or not, be aware that the author has also created wikipedia entries that are simply made up (for example see Atromeroptic Law).Hfwd 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. --Jūzeris | Talk 14:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. And translate de:Wasserstrahlpumpe --Pjacobi 20:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonverifiable OR and NN vanity respectively Tonywalton 10:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both, vanity Salsb 11:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, vanity, unverifiable. Andrew pmk 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy Charles Douglas Wehner and mergeWehner Blower to user page, Otherwise *Delete both. David Henderson 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cancelled Shows on FOX

Is this list nearly neccessary? "An untimely death?" All shows are cancelled at some point or another (except, maybe, the news). FuriousFreddy 19:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I have no problem with a list of cancelled shows, but this information is duplicated line for line in the Formerly broadcast shows section of List of programs broadcast by Fox. The article's title doesn't follow naming conventions, so a redirect isn't really beneficial. -D. Wu 20:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is already a list and a category listing Fox shows, and the intro is borderline POV since Fox has become notorious in recent years for cancelling shows that have become cult favorites (Firefly, Wonderfalls, Brisco County, etc). Not needed. 23skidoo 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fox is notorious for cancelling shows which are cult favorites as the above said. Its an interesting list as many of these died in like a week. And not all shows are cancelled, many are killed off by its creators, i.e. most sucessful shows. Redwolf24 01:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cirrusism

DIY religioncruft Ben-w 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Keep This article may be relevant, give it time to expand. A new user took time to create it, give him a chance, please. It needs a clean-up not deletion. D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment clean it up and expand it all you like, it still won't be notable or encyclopedic and should still be deleted for that reason. Ben-w 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Another comment This entire VfD shows some of the worse rudeness I have seen on Wikipedia. The editor that had put this article on VfD did so two minutes after a new user created this article. I see no reason why this cannot expand, and I still believe that it is plausible that Wikipedia have some articles that may not show on Yahoo! or Google. If deleting an article by a user that had been on this site for no more than five minutes, and not even giving it a chance to expand is a warm welcome to you all, I do not see how anyone stays on this site (including myself). This entire vote is biased, because I most point out that so many Wikipedian are adverse to religion, they pretty much don't want to see more religion articles here. One major problem with Wikipedia is that too many editors are caught up in their self righteous "intellect" that they don't see the most intelligent thing to do: let other's expand their mind as well. Ergo, how about welcoming a new idea, and allowing potential editors (i.e. the one who made this article) feel welcome and obliged to edit on this encyclopedia, rather than bashing his first article, and scaring him away. I didn't even see one of you all welcome him into this dispute. But that is too late now, because he left the encyclopedia. Gee, I wonder why?D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Is this "religion" notable? No. Is there any verifiable information about it? No. So we delete it. Ben-w 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow I really am not trying to argue. You didn't give it much time to be notable, did you? So, you delete it after giving it three minutes to expand. The whole arguement that this is not notable is an opinion in itself. Why is it not notable? It 1)presents fact about the subject at hand, and 2) adds new information to this site. Ben-w has accused me of "ad hominem attacks" when I have only stated that the notion of giving an entirely new editor three minutes to create and improve an article was somewhat rude. I just have a feeling that it is. D. J. Bracey (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment All the time in the world will not make this article notable because the subject is not notable. Is there a way I can get this piece of information to enter your head? It is not relevant how long the article has been there or how mean you think I am or what you think Wikipedia should be. A two-person "religion" which consists entirely of a freeweb-hosted site is not notable. The group has at best a handful of adherents, there are no public documents or records or articles about it; it has no buildings dedicated to it, it has been involved in no newsworthy or historical events. It is not notable. NOT NOTABLE. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, you need to do so based on the notability of Cirrusism. Try to find an article about it in a newspaper. There isn't one. Find a reference to it in any published media. There isn't any. Find an external webpage that discusses it. There isn't one. Ben-w 19:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Actually, there is an external link, as posted by the new user. How is it that your opinion: that it is not notable, any greater than it is notable? The article 1) DOES PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES EXIST. YOU GAVE THE ARTICLE THREE MINUTES TO EXPAND AND YET BLINDLY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE "NOTABLE" Maybe the article would be more to your whims if you had the dececency to have a modicum of patience. The whole argument that the notability should be basd on the side of an article is very scewed. One editor posted that "Wikipedia is not actually here to spread new ideas" And yet this supposed to be an encyclopedia of unbiased content, used to benefit others? This article has not been given time to expand, as Ben-w has impulsively bought this up for VfD, without consideration that the article had been three minutes old, and thus, has not time to expand.D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero hits on Google or Yahoo!. Wikipedia is not the place to get advertising for newly-created religions. Zoe 20:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment That's what is supposed to be so great about Wikipedia. As th largest encyclopedia in history, it ought to have things that others may not. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT. Zoe 23:03, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I believe this article is by a fledgling author and has potential. We should give it time to develope and see where it goes. NightShine 20:30, August 10, 2005 (CET)
  • Comment anyone voting keep, please address the reasons why I nominated this article for VfD and explain why "Cirrusism" is notable and how information about it can be independently verified. Ben-w 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete all microfaiths until their leaders have been crucified' - nn and (more to the point) nonverifiable --Doc (?) 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Microfaiths are no more notable than micronations. --Carnildo 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

ah, but micronations, or should I say micronations are at least notable enough to have an article, cirrusim is not, thus delete--64.12.116.130 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This religion would appear to have "fallen into semi-disrepair" already, according to its own article. Notable? Hardly. The sandbox might be a good place for such articles to expand, if someone wants editing practice. Tonywalton 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn religion vanity. --Etacar11 01:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • • Abstain. It seems that the main flaw that people have with this is that they do not like the idea of this religon. Maybe these people should try to be a bit more open-minded to these microfaiths, instead of screaming crucify the author, but that is just one guy talking. 14:57 08 - 11 - 05 (CET) (Unsigned comment by NightShine (talk · contribs), only edits here)

• Keep I agree the text needs a spellcheck, but if the author took more time to explain, I'm sure there'll be more reason to keep it.(Unsigned vote by 82.161.174.130 (talk · contribs), only edits here)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not actually here to spread new ideas, it's here to report on the ones that have already caught on. FreplySpang (talk) 17:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • Wow, this is supposed to be a place of non-bias information, and "free knowledge" that everyone should benefit from, but not allow new ideas in? D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you read WP:NOT? This is an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. Zoe 20:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Zoe is right; even with a better POV, however, this is completely insignificant and should be removed.Dottore So

• Delete no evidence of notability, and more importantly, no verifiability. It's not a question of being open minded. Wikipedia is not the place for things that are not mentioned anywhere else, it's the place for things which have information available on them from reputable sources. Friday (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I know what Wikipedia is now, and as far as I concerned, I don't know if I want to be a part of it. D. J. Bracey (talk)
    • Why does it worry me that someone who has been here for eight months is only now finding out what Wikipdia is? Zoe 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have know what Wikipedia is. Why does it worry me that I have wasted eight months editing for this site? (I am over 1,950, fifty more, I'll be off) D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Aranel. Closing. Essjay · Talk 03:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Disaster of 2004

Delete Non-encyclopedic joke PhilipO 19:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I was about to speedy this. Meelar (talk) 19:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Should of have speedied this joke. Speedy Delete. feydey 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• You were about to speedy it? Why don't you? It's nonsense anyway. --IByte 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daily News Central

A website ("since 2004") that regurgitates "health news" (e.g. any recent medical discoveries that scare people). No intrinsic notability, links are frequently spammed to large amounts of Wikipedia articles. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Links to this site are being spammed to large amounts of Wikipedia articles. --PhilipO 20:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be part of a spam/googlebombing campaign. See Special:Contributions/68.169.172.62 for examples. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as content-free link to a website anyway Tonywalton 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. DS1953 05:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite The above votes contain good information. So rewrite article along the lines of "A source of spam on any recent medical discoveries that scare people". If I were hit by spam from DNC Wikipedia is one of the sources I'd use to check their legitimacy; if I found them documented as spam merchants that would be useful information!. Maybe a better solution to previous concerns is to block them from editing wikipedia? --Cje 14:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No, our collective opinions are all phrased in POV style. Wikipedia is not a disinformation site. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Gamers

delete forumcruft Ben-w 19:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or speedy. NN, forumcruft, vanity, spam. Alexa rank 1,791,161 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Andrew Tonywalton 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Andrew. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as an attack page. --malathion ^talk 21:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Areems

The article is new and needs to grow still; rapid deletion is probably not the way to go as it is a valid entry subject (although my admittedly limited writing skills may not have done said subject justice). I request aid from the wikipedia user base to help this article grow into the full-fledged entry it deserves to be. Theplebianking 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, Keep and improve, it has been started less than an hour ago. Pigger 20:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable troll. Also article appears to be an attack page related to some sort of GNAA infighting. I'm the one that nominated it for speedy deletion. Dave6 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• GNAA infighting? There is no such thing, mister. You can't resist, can you? Always tryin' to keep the black man down. Why don't you try to improve the article, instead of hatin'? Pigger 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Allow this article to be kept and make it flourish over time. It should not be deleted, in my opinion. anonymous 21:15, 10 August 2005 (GMT)

• Fag. God you're a self-righteous cunt aren't you mister 'dave six'. Chill out and let the areems article grow. Or are you jealous of his burgeoning fame? Theplebianking 20:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG Keep. In the face of the growing epidemic of obesity, it is in the best interest of our children that this article not only be kept but highly publicised. --Impi.za 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, please take your pathetic and boring injokes elsewhere. Ben-w 20:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. YA GUYS NO JOKING HERE SERIOS BUSINESS Ignatiov (talk · contribs) (this is his first edit)
• Delete any mention of the GNAA apart from its own page. No notability. Censure Theplebianking for making a ridiculously phrased nomination. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, Armands is obviously not a former GNAA member, as it is clearly visible on the photo that the colour of his skin is pasty white, and the most important requirement for GNAA membership is being a Gay Nigger. I'll fix it. Pigger 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. I think Theplebianking is doing pretty damn well for a new user.

• Speedy delete as an attack page. DES ^(talk) 20:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Look, I put a lot of effort into this page okay and all of the information is factually correct, totally accurate. If you think you detect a bias well that may be the case! After all, aren't we all biased a little bit? Regardless, you should try to elimanate the bias from the article instead of wantonly tossing about VFDs and quick VFDs; it is a valid entry on a relatively well-known troll. (I can only think of a few more widely-known: SovietRussia, timecop, _ns, klerck maybe?) Theplebianking 21:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Coulson

There's really nothing that is useful. The fact that he plays Tom Riddle is already in the Harry Potter pages. I don't think saying "He's an actor that played some guy in some movie" is enough information to qualify for his own page. --Matjlav 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep - He is a real actor who was played in 7 or 8 tv mini-series and several movies. Lots of actors have pages on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 04:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Article definately needs a rewrite though. Redwolf24 05:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Notable actor. Laur 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm with Redwolf in that this needs a re-write, but as long as he's still (semi-) famous for playing in the Harry Potter movies (no small feat, mind you) he deserves an article. -mysekurity 22:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of other actors of similar or lesser notability have articles here. Peter Farago 03:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• I vote to keep the page Keep, but why is this still in votes for deletion. It has been past five days. from User:129.170.160.216 (do non-registered users vote?)
• Strong keep. He's not an extra, for Pete's sake; he's a multiply credited actor, albeit a minor one. There are many Harry Potter pages that desrve deletion (minor objects, spells, characters), but CC should be allowed to have a page describing his filmography.J. Goard 19:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite notable enough. Hall Monitor 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I didn't bother to look at the pre-rewrite version, but the current version is a decent bio of a notable (not major, but notable) actor. Robert A West 14:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep TonyJoe 00:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable actor. Gafaddict 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

do not put votes below this line

Note: this was never listed on the main VFD page, so I've listed it today. sjorford →•← 20:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the page and it should read better. I don't think you can get away with saying he is just an actor that played some guy in some movie. He's an actor who has played one of literatures most famous villians in one of Hollywoods most successful film adaptation.

Sorry about the state of the article. It was one sentence when it got put up for deletion, so I just dumped a partial filmography into it to show that there was enough to warrent an article. If I get a few minutes next week ill have a look at other biographical pages and see if I can format it and flesh it out some (unless (hopefully) someon else does first). Dalf | Talk 06:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I spent a few hours already looking for biographical information. I think this is the best information out there. But I spent a lot of time on it, and I think it is a much better article.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 6 to delete (including the nominator) -- BD2412 ^talk 11:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Saturday Knight

Not only does the author give NO contextual information about the episode (it's a Family Guy episode, and I only know that because I am a fan), but this is just a random episode in the series with no significant cultural or any other kind of signficance. The so-called "goof" is actually because the author missed the subtle irony behind the premise of the joke. Frag 20:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, wikipedia is not paper, vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. Meelar (talk) 20:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. Nothing wrong with having an article about the ep -- and it is significant in that Mr. Weed dies in it -- but this article is all over the place and uses the definite article. The show is called Family Guy. Ben-w 20:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to instead have an article called "List of Family Guy episodes"? --Frag
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If the article had problems, Template:Sofixit. CanadianCaesar 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is already a much better summary of this episode at List of Family Guy episodes. There are only five Family Guy episodes with their own articles and none of them serve any particular purpose that could not be covered by the List. - Thatdog 23:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --R.Koot 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Semi-literate tripe. -R. fiend 17:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Robert Happelberg 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Going along with Thatdog's reason, I also think that we should wait to give each page its own section, and delete those that already have one... the list is fair enough for now. Same for American Dad's episode list. Sonicrazy 02:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thatdog and Sonicrazy. DS1953 05:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on individual Star Trek episodes, and Family Guy has in a short time shot pretty close up to Star Trek in cultural impact. ShutterBugTrekker 20:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anyone challenging articles on individual episodes of American Dad. Family Guy episodes are much worthier, in my opinion. Del arte 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnatan Weed

"Johnathan Weed" (note correct spelling) is a minor character in Family Guy, hardly deserving of his own article, especially since all of this information and more can be found in the article List of characters from Family Guy. --Frag 20:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, since it contains no new information and is misspelled. Although it would have saved trouble to just redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 23:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Aranel. No redirect since "Johnatan" is not a common misspelling. DS1953 05:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pishee

Seems unencyclopedic and non-notable, no incoming links. Neilc 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per above. Neilc 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a dicdef at best, maybe move to wiktionary. Malo 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary Tonywalton 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Without any indication that it is used by English speakers, do not transwiki to English-language wiki. DS1953 05:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not even a dicdef. It might be a dicdef in an Urdu or Hindu Wiki. Avalon 04:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandprixgames

Not notable web forum, Alexa: 460 000. If not just say. feydey 20:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The site actually has several thousand members, yet Wikipedia is not a web directory, so I'm entirely undecided on the matter. --Frag
• Delete. A web forum that should be kept is the rare exception. Ben-w 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. Articles describing websites are particularly useless, since one can just go to the website. Robert A West 22:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-authoritarian

This is a word and so it just amounts to some kind of dictionary definition. I don't think it could properly be an encyclopedia article as there is no such recognized general philosophy by that name that I'm aware of. Wikipedia has a policy against making articles that just serve as a definition of a term. RJII 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete RJII 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (initiator of vote for deletion)
• Keep, as this is an accepted sociopolitical philosophy in most academic studies in that field. --Frag
  • Really? Care to cite any such studies that regard it as such? RJII 20:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It was a style of parenting popular in the '70s that destroyed a whole generation. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A joke, right? RJII 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks as if it could become a useful article. I've put a philo-stub on it Tonywalton 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Though maybe it should be moved to Anti-authoritarianism Tonywalton

• Speedy keep This is more than a dicdef now; and it does not include Dr. Spock yet. It would be policy to move it to a noun. Septentrionalis 02:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't really understand why there's a VfD. Saswann 15:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Because it just amounts to a definition of a word. There is a Wikipedia policy against that. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
    • There is a Wikipedia policy against articles that can't be more than a definition of a word, this is a stub that can easily grow into something signifigant Saswann 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how. First of all it had an unsourced definition that someone just made up. I just replaced it with a sourced one. But, I had to look up its negative (authoritarianism) to derive it. I don't think there's any such philosophy. RJII 16:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with RJII; there is no recognised body of philosophical or politico-theoretical work that scholars call "anti-authoritarianism" as a recognised, classifiable subject. Dottore So 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The concept of anti-authoritarianism is well-established, and the definition can easily be expanded to an article. Santtus 22:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll believe it when it happens. RJII 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Authoritarian. If it can be expanded to be worth an article of its own, it can be done perfectly well as part of that larger subject, and if/when it becomes a significant enough subject in itself to merit splitting off into its own article again, it'll be clearer to everyone then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamal al sharief

seems non-notable, if not quite a speedy candidate. At least one google hit as "Jamal Al Sharif" seems to be this person, but most such hits seem to be about a different person, a soccer player. Delete unless notability established. DES ^(talk) 20:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this dubai-ous article. A prospective head of a prospective initiative is nn. Time enough to write it again if it goes somewhere. Robert A West 22:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn for now. --Etacar11 01:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against a Jewish right of return to Israel

Pure original research, POV personal essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• POV fork. Delete stante pede. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We have a "Controversy" section in Law of Return and an "Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism" section in Zionism, which seem balanced, so there's no need for this. POV fork. CanadianCaesar 22:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR/POV/redundant with no useful content to merge. Robert A West 22:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV Fork. Sabine's Sunbird 22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Delete do I hear an echo? Speedy Speedy. Yup. Why isn't it gone yet? Tomer ^TALK 23:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the two huge malformed wikilinks in the text were originally ministubs of their own, written by the same author as this current piece of heartstoppingly eloquent prose. I tagged them for speedy when they showed up on WP:NP, and as you can see, they're gone without so much as a whimper for my having tagged them so. I would have tagged this one the same, but I had some uh... "problems" at the time, so I didn't get to it. All that to say that this should really be a speedy as well. Tomer ^TALK 23:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Covered elsewhere. More agitprop. — RJH 16:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Aecis 19:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Hillel 11:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the title should be enough. This title simply doesn't belong in wikipedia. Olleicua 20:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Gunnybanks

no such place, Google returns 0 results Malo 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -D. Wu 22:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. borderline CSD as no context/hoax. Robert A West 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 01:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mancrush

neologism and attack page -- two great tastes that DELETE great together Ben-w 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An anonymous vandal removed the VfD tag, so I reverted. Robert A West 22:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but I would add an entry to Seinfeld_characters_and_culture#Seinfeld_sayings. - choster 23:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- per the nomination. --Mysidia 23:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combo drive petition

Petitions are not in and of themselves notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. An internet "petition" with only 700 "signatures"? -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A petition with only 700 signatures? --Carnildo 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• If an online petition ever accomplished anything, then sure. Until then, delete. tregoweth 00:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, yep, they do squat. --Etacar11 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At least the author didn't include an advertising link for the petition. --Madchester 02:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• He did. I removed it. I have been on a search-and-destroy mission for petitiononline.com links lately. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are thousands of far more unuseful articles on Wikipedia. Delete them first! Henri Tapani Heinonen 06:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I just cannot believe this! I am not a vandal, I am not a spammer. Still, you are treating me like one. I do not have any financial profit of my petitions. I am just trying to make some process in technology. I cannot understand why The Uninvited deleted the Combo link in the Blu-ray Disc article! There are many illegal articles and books on the Internet and nobody tries to close them. For example, this Wiki-book http://fi.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hupu_2:Johdanto is very drug positive and it is still on the net! I will not write to the Wikipedia anymore, if I am getting treating like this. Good luck with the vandals! Henri Tapani Heinonen 07:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! No one has said you are a vandal, just that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, other, less worthwhile articles have escaped notice -- so far. They will be hunted down: they cannot escape! Seriously, I have a suggestion for a good article: issues raised by the rapid obsolescence of data-storage technologies. The subject was discussed peripherally in a book, and associated PBS documentary, Slow fires, which dealt primarily with the loss of acid-paper books. Such an article can be well-sourced, informative, encyclopedic, and could include your proposal as an example of potential solutions without being either original research or vanity. Meanwhile, I vote to delete this particular article. Robert A West 17:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Henri Tapani Heinonen 06:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Vecchionne

Apparent hoax. No google hits for "Vincent Vecchionne" or "Vinnie and the Strummers". RadicalSubversiv E 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ditto. Karmafist 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn unverifiable etc. etc. etc. Robert A West 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Jaxl | talk 22:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/probable hoax. --Etacar11 01:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baraqyal

It appears to be a joke/hoax. --Mysidia 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete borderline speedy for no context. Robert A West 22:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jaxl | talk 22:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or cleanup, as it appears to be an existing Biblical name (more specifically, from the Book of Enoch). The text is a butchered version of an explanation that appears in a few other places on the web, e.g. here. --IByte 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unsalvable. feydey 23:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/obscure even if cleaned up. --Etacar11 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by JYolkowski. Closing. Essjay · Talk 03:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jhoana Vega

Currently a blank page. History seems to be made-up nonsense. Only one Google hit on the name, appears to be unrelated. PeepP 22:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn even if claims were verifiable, which they are not. Robert A West 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acteron

It might be a Viking Metal band, but allmusic [13] = 0; Google gives Acteron corporation mostly and adding "albums or releases" doesn't help. The homepage: [14] says: Coming soon, so no help there. Conclusion, Not notable. And the image too to recycle bin. N.B. same anon added the group to the List of Viking metal bands. End feydey 22:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity Soltak 22:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 22:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity, again. --Etacar11 02:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly promotion, delete image as well - --Outlander 14:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xiaoxuan

Currently a blank page, history is original research. PeepP 22:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete OR, maybe speedy (page was blanked by author). Jaxl | talk 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- if "original research" includes "heartfelt cry of anguish", then I guess that's a reason. I would have gone with a variant on "vanity" myself. Either way. Ben-w 22:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm inclined towards speedily deleting it on account of it reading as absolute nonsense. --IByte 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Gozzi

Seems plainly absurd & non-notable, almost a candidate for speedy deletion. There are no links to this page. Google doesn't turn up much. Neilc 22:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. Neilc 22:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; 25 google results for just the name. [15] Jaxl | talk 22:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, nonsense. --IByte 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Dysepsion 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DS1953 05:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Hillel 11:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of teen's magazines

Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to find what magazines to buy... Phroziac (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; list can be added to teen magazine until such time it is long enough to require its own article. - choster 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a category? It would make a useful one, I think. CanadianCaesar 23:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with teen magazine until such time as it is long enough to require its own page. Kappa 23:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Who's teen?) Flowerparty ^talk 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Apostrophe (mark)#Greengrocers' apostrophes in other words? Tonywalton

• Comment as CanadianCaesar says, this looks like a category that should be created Tonywalton 23:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I will create a category for it. --Phroziac (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Teens' magazines. --Phroziac (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to List of teen magazines. Lists do not perform the same function as categories. Zoe 05:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• merge or create new category for [[[teenage]]][[[media]]] no tilde on free internet console. cannot sign name. [[[Doktorbuk]]]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] P47RICK

Non-notable. Possible vanity Dysepsion 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like his biggest contributions to the world, (as P47R!CK) are CSS hacks. Hardly notable, especially outside of a subgroup of an (albeit large) online community. --Icelight 23:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy No notability present in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think "legendary" amounts to at least an assertion of notability, so we have to bring it here. Sigh. --Icelight 00:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moonspiracy

hoax; no such book Ben-w 23:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. - Lucky 6.9 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedily, as link spam in a cloak. Flowerparty ^talk 23:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 00:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in production I assume means not published yet. If it gets published, maybe then, but not now. --Etacar11 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Etacar11 — Hillel 11:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). Since most of these votes involve merging stuff, yall should just go ahead and do it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Japanese Seizure Robots

If it wasn't for its use in The Simpsons, I think this article would have been deleted a long time ago. However, it's on the border of notability even with that, there's no "cultural" references section within the Simpsons main article and I don't have all that much trust in merging articles(I tried merging one awhile ago, and nothing has happened, maybe i'm just missing something here.) This would be a perfect lodestone for a "Foriegn Culture in the Simpsons" article though. Karmafist 22:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment I saw this as a contribution about the article above -- "Moonspiracy" -- and wondered if it was a bit from "Grampa vs Sexual Inadequacy" that I had missed. Ben-w 00:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's a reference to Porygon. Merge/redirect there, else delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• It could be Merged with either Banned episodes of Pokémon or Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I don't know. I'll vote keep if someone points out individual notability. CanadianCaesar 00:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, regarding how to merge things, see Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. It's much easier than listing something for VfD, trust me. CanadianCaesar 00:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know, putting in {{vfd}} is pretty easy;-). Couldn't find a duplicate to this article though. Karmafist 03:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • People make mistakes with VfD all the time; just today I had to add a header to someone else's nomination (I always forget that part myself, and have to go back and add it) and then add their nomination to the main page. I hate putting things on VfD. It's valid information. How do you measure notability? Can it be redirected somewhere? Can it be merged somewhere? Are people going to be annoyed with you for nominating something? Also, you need not find a "duplicate article" in the strictest definition, just an article with a similar topic. The first thing I merged was Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish" (A Simpsons episode) with characters who only appeared in that episode, the Flying Hellfish squad. They're not exactly on the same topic (an episode vs. characters), but they fit in together. CanadianCaesar 04:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to say merge but the article needs a lot of rewriting as it is. So just get rid of it and add some information in Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. Don't mention the retarded website though. - Hahnchen 01:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Battling Seizure Robots (which is the actual title of the show), then delete most of the content and merge/redir the rest to either the episode capsule, or a list of shows within the Simpsons. Radiant_>|< 12:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyper generalized orthogonal Lie algebra

The article appears to be crank literature. I won't guarantee that there is no meaningful content in it, but I did take a course on Lie algebras in grad school, and I'm unable to decode this article as anything but nonsense. Bcrowell 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Weird. I took a course on Lie Algebra as an undergrad; it seems like this is talking about the symmetry groups of Newtonian and Lorentzian flat spacetimes. There are lots of things that mark this as crank literature, including the reference to "nonsense imaginary" factors, etc. etc... In any case, if it really is just about the lie algebra associated with the Galilean and Poincaré symmetry groups, it is covered elsewhere. If there is something more, it is cranky. Sdedeo 00:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I remeber an article named something like this being deleted before. I'll ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics. --R.Koot 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I ran into this before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive9#Hyper generalized_orthogonal Lie_algebra. This article seems to have some sound math behind it, but it is horribly, horribly written. Nobody took the time to clean it up. Unless somebody promises to tackle it, I would think that having something so badly written is unacceptable. Redirect to Lie algebra for now. Oleg Alexandrov 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe "new notation" is his way of saying "here is a new figure we haven't discussed yet," not "I have invented new mathematics." eg, a new definition. We're possibly looking at a mechanical translation of a Portuguese text. Collabi 05:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless someone can massively rewrite this to make some sense. This page just seems to be a collection of equations thrown together with no attempt to introduce concepts or to set up some coherent framework. The random addition of phrases like "new notation!" suggests that part of this qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 04:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: a LACNIC search on the IP address reveals it to be in Brazil, and thumbing through the user's history we see that it has made a variety of somewhat accurate though syntactically tortured edits to a variety of algebra pages. I think this is a good-faith effort by a math student with some depth in algebra but a marginal grasp of the English language. It may be necessary to delete the page as it is hopelessly confusing. We should try to encourage this user to contribute to Portuguese wikipedia, but its history indicates that its hasn't touched anything since 22march2004 and so it's probably gone away. Collabi 05:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He has actually contributed to the spanish wikipedia, and it contains a near duplicate of this acticle, except for the "New notation!" and some other sentences ending with an exclamation mark. --R.Koot 14:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, if he's this clear in every language, he should find work as a TA. (now voting delete) Collabi 18:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - having looked more closely, I agree about the signs of crankiness Sdedeo mentions. It's also suspicious that I can find no reference elsewhere to Hyper generalized orthogonal Lie algebra. Tearlach 18:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -Lethe | Talk 20:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Look at the history! This page has existed forever! How has it not been deleted yet?

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shlomi Harif

Googling for that name gets 235 hits, many of whom are not the same person. Harif's writing may have been published in magazines, but this is not an indicator of notability; I am a published writer and I do not expect an article in Wikipedia. Harif's claim to fame seems to be having published chapbooks. It did not take long for me to learn that a chapbook is a home-published book, using your own computer and printer. Denni☯ 23:44, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

• Delete. Tikkun is legit, I don't know of any of the others. It sounds like a vanity page, presumably written by the subject, which argues against its inclusion IMO (if he was notable, someone else would have created it.) Note that the creator is spamming the name around [16]. Note that a chapbook is not necessarily vanity published -- but in this case, it probably is. Sdedeo 00:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with both of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks liek a lot of jibberish. length of stay has nothing to do with it IMO.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Floating Bellhop

Completing a nomination from July 20. Tagging edit summary was: «could not find any other reference anywhere; seems fake».No vote. Nabla 23:46:54, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

• Delete or weak merge. I was about to call it a hoax too, but I found one reference on Google groups from 1996. Certainly doesn't seem like a common term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang definition. Hi Nabla. I think starting a VfD counts as a vote for deletion itself. Furthermore, you could have done a bit of research yourself and cast a vote. It seems strange to reopen a VfD creating more work for everyone. Sdedeo 00:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not start nor reopen a VfD. I found a VfD tag with no discussion page and not listed here, so I simply completed someone else's nomination. I think that not voting is not unusual in those cases, although sometimes I do also vote. Nabla 00:48:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry, misunderstood you. I think you did the right thing. Sdedeo 00:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem. Thanks. Nabla 12:55:12, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, but cleanup (adding cleanup tag). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fluxblog

Listing nomination from Aug 8. No vote. Nabla 23:59:01, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

• DELETE: facts and title are nonsensical. (by WillC 2005-08-08 19:09:36)
• Keep and tag for improvement 133,000 google hits (excluding itself) and a mention in the New York Times and Spin strikes me as both notability and verifiability. On the other hand, the article should actually tell us something -- what did the NYTimes and Spin say? Robert A West 15:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• rewrite May be nonsensicle but some truth. Rewrite- otherwise delete.
• Keep as per Robert A West. - BanyanTree 18:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and definitively tag for improvement. If we decide to delete this article, however, we should nominate Matthew Perpetua for deletion as well. — Hillel 11:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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