Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 14

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laércio Beckhauser

Delete this article is in Portuguese and I'm the first to admit that my Portuguese is rusty at best and wrong at worst. However, I'm completely sure that this article derives from a textbook entry of some variety and deals with the genealogy of Johan Karl Beckhäuser. At best it's not notable and at worst it's a copyvio. Soltak 00:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Here it is in horrible, broken English (please note the translation request box now says, "if you ploughs the person who just added this template"... tee hee). Still not very clear, but clear enough that you can tell it's not at all encyclopedic. He gets 12,000 hits in non-English languages, so he might be important. I say, delete and let someone write something new if they feel inspired. JDoorjam 00:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete , as above. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with above. In addition: google produces only 21 "non-similar" hits on that name (all in Portuguese), and Amazon has noh its on the name. This seems to support the notion that whomever this name belongs to lacks notability.Tobycat (talk) 23:53, 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 no concensus. I was responsible for handling that VFD back then, and considering the cirumstances I rather give the benefit of the doubt. If you wish to re-delete the article due to reasons other than undeletion/Karl-VFD reasons, please feel free to resumbit a new VFD. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neat tiling

This article was previously VfD'd.

• The result of that VFD was delete all

So why does the article still exist?

• It was undeleted

What were the arguments for its undeletion

• There weren't any, it didn't go through Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

So shouldn't it be speedy re-deleted?

• Yes, but certain admins keep removing the tag

Why was it VFD'd in the first place?

• Artificial original research classification (a "neologism")
• The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation"
• It was created by a user known as "Karl Scherer" who has several user accounts, and had been inserting his original research into Wikipedia, as well as about 60 spam pages advertising games he had created
• Google search for the term returns only 118 results
• Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" (to discount obvious mirrors) returns only 35 results
• Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" and "scherer" (to

discount obvious mirrors and karl scherer's use of it) returns only 20 results

• Of those 20 results, most use the term as in "that tiling is really neat", i.e. "impressive", and not in the way the article suggests at all
• The one that doesn't is a spam-list of words deriving from wikipedia mirrors.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Delete log entry: 21:35, July 3, 2005 Mailer diablo deleted "Neat tiling" (content was: '{{User:-Ril-/Karl-Scherer-Spam}} A neat tiling is a type of tiling. A tiling {T} of a shape S is called neat if * each tile T is a poly...')
2. Delete log entry: 19:59, August 7, 2005 Curps restored "Neat tiling"
3. You may want to refer to User_talk:Curps#Neat_tiling and User_talk:-Ril-#Lock_puzzle.2C_etc.
4. It seems clear that there is some sort of user conflict going on here, so I'm holding my vote until things are sorted out. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 01:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlocking puzzle for a detailed comment on why the original VfD proposal was not well made. The example of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle should have served as a caution that you overreached your mandate.
  
  To recap what I wrote on your talk page, suppose there are three types of articles:
  1. My Stupid Book (mystery novel), a spam page
  2. unsolved mystery novel
  3. mystery novel

then pages of type 1 above are obvious VfDs, pages of type 3 are not (generic term), while pages of type 2 are debatable: is "unsolved mystery novel" a generic term and subcategory of "mystery novel", or is it a neologism coined by the user? The point is, that's precisely the sort of thing a VfD is supposed to sort out: people research it and Google it and present their conclusions in a VfD vote. The current article in question Neat tiling seems to be of type 2 above: is it a neologism invented by Karl Scherer, or is it a generic term in general use among the puzzle-solving community? Such a VfD debate can now take place at last, on this page.

However, you presented your original Vfd in a careless way, or perhaps even a deceptive way if you had done it deliberately: you listed only pages of type 1 above in the VfD itself and buried the pages of type 2 and type 3 within a very long listing (200 articles!) on a completely separate page (never mentioning them on the VfD page itself) that most voters probably never looked at. It was just flat out wrong to lump pages of entirely different categories into one humungous VfD whose presentation incorrectly implied that all the pages to be deleted were of type 1 above (obvious deletion candidates).

This was a procedural error in the original VfD —it is questionable whether a page was duly deleted if it was never even mentioned on any VfD page. -- Curps 02:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment actually, that WAS discussed at the VFD, thus the word "all" as opposed to "only the games". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You would have claimed a mandate to delete Burr puzzle too... you only failed to do so because you accidentally didn't notice it the first time around. The subsequent separate VfD for that page (a "keep") clearly indicated that you overreached your mandate. -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. When I click on your '"neat tiling" minus Wikipedia' link above, I get 61 results, not 35. Nevertheless, it is possible that you may have a point that this could be largely a neologism proposed by Karl Scherer. Perhaps other more neutral eyes could judge this. When I did a Google search I didn't do the "minus Wikipedia" refinement. I believe you are wrong in the other cases, however (the ones that are the subject of the other VfD). -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I still get 35, I'm unsure why you would get 61 for clicking on the same link? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Google Is Not Science (tm), nor should it be the centre of VfD. 35/61 - either way, less than 100 is 'not much internet presence'/'usually has different name'. This is a very minor factor as to whether an article is worth keeping, unless we're talking an entirely web based topic (a particular message board etc). --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure that this is a valid mathematical concept, and I'm sure that this is not the true mathematical term for it. Merge/redir to tesselation. Radiant_>|< 08:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Why are we even discussing this? It was an article that went through VfD, and which was recreated without going through VfU. It should be speedied immediately. --Nandesuka 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There were procedural flaws in the VfD: this article was never mentioned by name in the VfD, so it is questionable whether it was ever properly VfD'd. -- Curps 15:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Curps, I read the VfD, and I think you're mistaken -- Neat tiling clearly appears on the list attached to the VfD, which was discussed at the time. Even if you are correct, though, the right thing to do would have been to list Neat Tiling on VfU and discuss the procedural flaws there. Instead, now we're caught in a twisty little maze of procedural violations, all different. Nandesuka 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it was, everyone was pointed to the category in the 3rd of the 3 opening paragraphs, the issue of whether all the items in the category counted as well as those in listed in the list that was "includes but isnt limited to" was discussed at length in the VFD itself, and the result was delete ALL. And it didn't go through WP:VFU so re-creating it is an abuse of process, and it should be speedy re-deleted. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Nandesuka, appearing "on the list attached to the VfD" (actually, an entirely separate page) is not the same as actually appearing at the top of the VfD page itself. Many voters undoubtedly never even looked at that page, and took their cue from the writeup at the top of the VfD page itself, which, intentionally or not, only listed egregious spam pages and failed to explicitly mention pages like neat tiling or lock puzzle, etc. This was procedurally flawed: the process was biased in a way to delete pages that in many cases would have survived their own individual VfD (as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle and the ongoing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlocking puzzle show). So as I've said I don't believe the original VfD validly applied to this page. But fair enough, to avoid procedural snafus I'll use VfU for such cases in the future. -- Curps 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If the nominator believes that The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation" then why the VfD - just move the page and change the nomenclature in the article. --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the article contains totally original research - it is called "continuous tesselation" because it is "continuous" and a "tesselation", in the same way that a "red cow" is called that because it is "red" and a "cow", but that doesn't warrent the article [[red cow]] existing. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't assert something has been made up on the spot, and has a 'correct mathematical term', that's patent nonsense. To continue your daft analogy, if you were to see one of these and go round telling people the 'correct biological term' is red cow, they'd all think you'd been having too much 'energy' drink. There might be correct names for things that don't exist, but there certainly aren't correct names for things that haven't been thought of. But seeing as people have been tessellating for thousands of years, I doubt very much whether this definition was first used by a C20 puzzler. Ask for deletion on grounds of notability by all means, but strike 'original research' and your speculation over the naming because you're misrepresenting the case. --zippedmartin 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the artificial classification that is made up. In the same way that classifying cows by colour was made up on the spot. Ununhexium is just latin for 116, it's not a name, its a placeholding definition, and the correct biological term for this is more likely to be bos rufus [although it isn't that either]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you agree that the sentence you meant to write at the top of the article was "Term is a neologism, the concept might be considered a form of continuous tesselation"? --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I am disappointed that this article was restored without going through VfU. I would like to offer that it is essential at this juncture to seperate how one feels about the breaches in procedure from the merits of the article in question. I need to do some research before voting so for now I abstain. Tobycat (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:40

Would you supply your reasoning please. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've gone through most of the non-WP Google links in a bit of detail, and found no evidence that neat and nowhere-neat have been used in this sense by anyone but Mr Scherer. Hv 09:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

But is it an invented term for an existing concept, is the question... --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer is "Yes". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So you admit that this isn't original research, and want to change your delete vote to merge-with-tessilation or similar? --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, and imediately list on VfU, if needed to take care of whether or not it should have been deleted, at which point it could be brought here instantly as well. Failing that, Delete as a non-notable term for a phenomena. --Icelight 00:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I am disturbed that non-mathematicians are styling themselves as capable judges of mathematical articles. I'd much prefer to see "the usual crowd" debating the article; I don't recognize any of the people above as having ever contributed to a math or physics article; as far as I know, none have any "bona fides". Please, if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, don't vote. And, by the way, using google for math research is a really really bad idea, since 99.999% of all math is not indexed in google. linas 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I am sufficiently familiar with mathematics to make a knowledgable judgement. I choose not to contribute to mathematics articles because I have no interest, not because I have no competance. I could, for example, demonstrate proficiency in Conformal mappings, holomorphisms, klien bottles, christoffel tensors, laplace transformations, bernoulli numbers, contour integration, riemann surface, etc. but I don't find it interesting, so I don't bother. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and move to edge-to-edge tiling or merge into tessellation. Grünbaum and Shephard, Tilings and Patterns, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1987, which I consider the most authorative references on the mathematical theory of tilings, defines edge-to-edge tilings on page 18. This addresses Ril's concern that neat tiling is a neologism. I don't care that much about the other concern, that it was undeleted improperly: our goal is to write an encyclopeadia. I could not find neat tiling nor continuous tessellation in either MathSciNet or the book, so I'm curious where Ril got this term from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Sometimes different groups use different jargon for the same thing. What most of the world calls GMT or UTC, the US military calls "Zulu time". It's possible that puzzle hobbyists use a different term than mathematicians, which could be solved by using redirects. "Edge-to-edge tiling" gets about 60 Google hits (none with "Scherer" or "Wikipedia" in them. -- Curps 15:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- The concept may deserve insertion into tessellation, but I doubt very much that the name is used by anyone other than the original poster. (And I am a mathematician.) -- Arthur Rubin 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for two reasons. Firstly, it was deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD. I'm as unhappy about the mass listing on VfD as other people are, but since it's clear that there's no clear consensus, we should follow policy and take it to VfU first. (In fact, it would be nice if some admin (Curps?) could go through Ril's list from the mass deletion—I'd like to acknowledge -Ril- for making the list available, since it's been helpful in the ensuing discussion—and look for other articles which aren't the Zillions spam they were accused of being, to list on VfU.)

Secondly, the article is no more than a definition and consensus seems to be that the most standard terminology is not neat tilings but edge-to-edge tilings for which we have a standard reference (Grünbaum and Shephard). (By consensus I mean both Jitse Niesen, above, and Joseph Myers in Talk:Tiling#Terminology.) It doesn't seem that we'd lose a great deal by deleting the article. When we have an article on edge-to-edge tilings, then we can put in a redirect—because I'm sure I have seen the term neat tilings in a recreational mathematics book, and besides, redirects are cheap. —Blotwell 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep with rename/merge option, as per Jitse Niesen, and request that he includes his citation (with cleanup ideally! :) in the article in preparation for the event. --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Radiant, and discuss on Talk:Tesselation. This is a waste of VfD's time. Septentrionalis 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jitse. And while it doesn't have anything to do with my vote, the original "VfD" was clearly flawed. Paul August ☎ 02:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy, it had Already been deleted as non-notable biography: [1].

[edit] Pronsias Radcliffe

• Delete nn vanity at best, nonsense at worst Soltak 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. Harro5 00:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On a Sensual Note

Delete: this is a band vanity page that doesn't approach any of the guidelines for notability. JDoorjam 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; no AMG entry, 374 google results, and their album is nowhere to be found on Amazon.com. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per BD2412. Jaxl | talk 19:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its a neverending flow of nn band vanity. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 01:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No brainer. --ZappaZ 02:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is informative to those of us from AU. Sorry if you Wikipedia snobs think that it is unworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.171.221 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 August 2005
• Merge into American University. Strictly speaking, this is not "band vanity" as the group is actually an AU student organization with revolving membership (i.e. new members are recruited to join as old ones graduate). However, this distinction aside, it is not independently notable enough to merit a separate article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per BD2412. It seems the same as mentioning UCLA or any other school has a marching band. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per BD2412. To be consistent, all the groups in this list, Collegiate_a_cappella_ensembles, should be Vfd'ed as well.--SparqMan 04:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the discussion page. Hamster Sandwich 06:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much more notable than the group I sang in. Isomorphic 06:05, 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manlike Woman the Indian prophetess of the Upper Columbia River

Nominating for deletion because it's non-notable. While doing a Google litmus test, I actually happened upon the blog of the article's author, where she said she wrote the article in order to increase the notability of the Manlike Woman, who she says "barely qualifies as a footnote in history." -D. Wu 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Does this qualify as some form of vanity? Good work, Uppland. Now this is how to convince the community to keep seemingly pointless articles. A lesson to all you inclusionists. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn per excellent research by Uppland. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kaúxuma Núpika, the name mentioned in the author's blog, got 14 google hits, and the title a whopping 38. It is interesting though, the amount of info gathered on someone's whose only claim is being a transexual, and being mentioned by afew tribes people to be considered a prophetess. Maybe a sentence mentioned somewhere in a related topic about that time and area would be fitting. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 03:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Change vote to keep due to evidence of notability. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 20:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper. Pburka 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Its both of those things, but still not notable. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 05:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly, but move to Kaúxuma Núpika. Transexual Native American prophet(ess) influential in the native population of British Columbia in the early 19th century. How many of those do we have? Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion? Google hits are a help, not a definite measurement of significance, and it is expected that fewer written sources exist for native American topics. She is apparently mentioned in this book on Amazon, the Biographical Dictionary of American Indian History to 1900. A JSTOR search results in a couple of articles mentioning her, one of which, "'The Natives Were Strong to Live': Reinterpreting Early-Nineteenth-Century Prophetic Movements in the Columbia Plateau", by Elizabeth Vibert, in Ethnohistory 1995, does so quite extensively, citing the same sources our article here does. Uppland 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum: It seems using Western terms such as transexual is less appropriate, as this was not an entirely unusual type of gender role in Native American cultures, and there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: Two-Spirit; it has been refered to as "berdache" by some academics, although that is apparently considered offensive. Two-Spirit lists among its references another journal paper, which turns out to be entirely devoted to this woman: Claude E. Schaeffer, "The Kutenai Female Berdache: Courier, Guide, Prophetess, and Warrior", in Ethnohistory 1965, pp 193-236. Schaeffer writes among other things that she is "mentioned in the writings of Gabriel Franchère, Alexander Ross, Washington Irving, David Thompson, John Work, Sir John Franklin, the explorer, and W. H. Gray, the missionary. All of these men, except Irving and Franklin, knew her personally. Several modern students of Northwest history, who noted references to the Kutenai berdache in the literary accounts, have assempled data on certain events of her unusual career." He goes on to cite a number of 20th century authors who have written about her. Uppland 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be important to identify just how Kutenai construct sexuality and what westerners would call transsexuality/transgenderism. Every Native group does so differently. "Berdache" (being a western term, anyway) and "two-spirit" (a term used by one particular group whose name escapes me and since generalized) probably don't cut it particularly well and the tribe's own designation would be preferable. - Montréalais 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not really familiar with the subject areas, neither with gender studies nor with Native American cultures; it would obviously be preferably if somebody who had at least half a clue would look at the articles I mentioned above (and possibly others I haven't found in my quick raid on JSTOR) and do something with this article. BTW, we have a three-and-a-half line article on Kootenai (tribe) and a two-line article on the Kootenai language - not exactly one of Wikipedia's stronger points... --Uppland 16:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and rename as per Uppland. Well done to him for his research. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and rename. A. J. Luxton 11:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Uppland. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per Uppland. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uppland --Mysidia (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nice research job. Needs major cleanup and a title move, but keep. Bearcat 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Being unusual is not the same as being notable. This is an obscure historical figure of no importance to history. I might even agree that she "deserves to be more than a footnote in history" but she's not, and an enclopedia is not the place to start changing that. "Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion?" Probably so, because only three of the men and women executed as witches in Massachusetts at the same time have their own articles, and everyone knows about them. Moreover, the whole point of the article is that she was not influential. She was disliked, mistrusted, sent packing, and not mourned when she died; if you want to right those wrongs, write a book. --Tysto 23:28, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Screw it. keep her. I just looked at my list of Dumbest Articles on Wikipedia, and this doesn't even scratch the surface of those dozens of idiotic cartoon robot Gundam articles. --Tysto 23:39, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:41

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xarit

Non-english dicdef -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 01:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary Kappa 01:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It's already there. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 02:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

LOL that was quick. Kappa 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 :) -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 02:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wiktionary. - Sikon 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it's there, redirects to wiktionary aren't usual. --Icelight 01:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe redirect to friend. - SimonP 01:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect to friend. Wgere would we stop - ami, freund, amigo .... ? --Cje 08:19, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Female and Male Assertiveness

• Unencyclopedic essay. Slac speak up! 01:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful text to Woman and Men --ZappaZ 02:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. I will say keep if it is cleaned up and de-POV'd by the author, unless evidence of this being mentioned elsewhere is presented (in which cas delete), or somewhere feesible is founded to merge it (in which case merge). →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 03:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if it cannot be de-POV'd. It also smells very suspiciously like a quotation from another article or from a longer piece of the author's original research. JDoorjam 03:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic essay. --Apyule 11:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research in the guise of quoting supporting random other works to support the editorialists' point. Nandesuka 12:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR. -Splash 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just needs some cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:42

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 04:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Edsforth

This was tagged by someone else for speedy deletion but saying that he is a Dartmouth professor could be taken as an assertion of importance of significance, so I'm listing it here instead. No vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. I'd ask the author but it's an anonymous IP with no other postings, so I doubt this one will get much counter-argument.... JDoorjam 03:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I did a bit of research and have added some more info. Pburka 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I'll say weak keep after rewrite; it looks much better now. Google hits were limited, though. Jaxl | talk 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Four books under his belt make him more notable than the average professor. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, only four books for an academic who does any quantity of research is pretty average output. This alone shouldn't be judgement of notability, there will be thousands of similar. --zippedmartin 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. More notable than the average professional baseball player, and professional baseball players are all kept, regardless of notability. Uppland 05:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes the "average professional baseball player" test. Kappa 08:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keepseems to meet the criteria for notability. Hamster Sandwich 08:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. Notable historian. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable author. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 20:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone proves that people have actually read his books. --zippedmartin 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If they are published there's a pretty large propability that people have read them. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 04:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

By no means. In fact, if the only sales are as a set text on a course he teaches at his uni, you can pretty much guarentee no one has gone cover to cover. Having said that, the amazon page for his most recent one is pretty flash, even if the sales rank is measly compared to fiction - dunno what a 'good seller' would be in the context of US academia. --zippedmartin 12:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In US academia, 5,000 books sold is considered a success. 20,000 sold is considered a blockbuster, according to my professors. That's for sociology, of course, things may be different for history or other fields. Hooper_X

Interesting. Now, if only there was somewhere with the numbers... --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:43
• Comment I refer voters here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch, another academic who has published four books, the most recent of which has a near identical Amazon sales rank as Edsforth's most recent. --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A high Amazon sales rank is important for the notability of a work aimed at popularity, but a low sales rank is completely irrelevant for the significance of academic publications. And as I pointed out in the other discussion, Gotch was clearly not an academic in the sense Edsforth is, and his books appear to have no scientific value; three of them, with almost identical titles, were popular books on the Latin names of animals, and one of these was deemed "virtually useless" by a reviewer in an academic journal. Uppland 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There is currently no assertion of critical importance of Edsforth's work in his article, if there were I agree that sales would be far less relevant. I suggest that without some assesment of an academic's work, there's no reason they should be given an easier ride on the sales front than a writer of popular fiction - university press is only one step from vanity press. You did a good job on digging up a review of Gotch's book, presumably some journal somewhere that will say Class Conflict and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer Society in Flint, Michigan is notable despite miserable sales compared to Roger & Me or other popularist work. --zippedmartin 18:25, 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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to keep, 3 to delete (including the nominator). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guido (jazz band)

NN band vanity. Delete. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 01:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not vanity. Also see http://www.squaresound.com/reviews/trancedave/tobal1remixes.html. Kappa 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really don't see any assertions of notability per WP:MUSIC. The closest they come is that they have three albums released by the (defunct) marketing arm of a (defunct) game developer. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 13:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page. Dottore So 15:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable in Japan where game sound tracks are more popular than in the west. btw. Square are not defunct, they merged with enix to form square enix! --TimPope 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:44

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muscle milk

Product promotion (aka spam) Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

• Delete. Certainly verifiable, but not encyclopedic, or NPOV. Pburka 03:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I love that "Benefits of using muscle milk:" is followed by a conspicuous blank space. JDoorjam 03:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Jaxl | talk 03:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that's one self-confident spammer, who leaves out the purchasing info. Gazpacho 04:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:30:57, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Delete although I probably just need more anabolic sleep time. Hamster Sandwich 07:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hamster, it's not the sleep time, it's the lack of acid-buffering agents. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 13:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam Nelgallan 17:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Alldis

Article was nominated for speedy, but there is a clear claim of notability (one of the fastest race walkers in Australia) and it is easily verifiable ([2] for instance). No vote from me at this time. Pburka 02:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Really hasn't done enough yet to deserve a page. Harro5 03:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promising junior athlete but hasn't achieved enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 05:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete needs to win a major event at the international level. I'd change my vote. Hamster Sandwich 07:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a lot of wikipedia articles for sports competitors who have never won an international event --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable. -Splash 16:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:45
• Delete, junior athlete.--nixie 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I've expanded the article a little using Google. Being an athletics fan would have helped. She seems marginally notable already, and likely to become more notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:51, 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 MERGE to Michigan State University. -Splash 06:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accafellas

Delete: {{NNBV}}. Music group that does not meet the requirements for notability. JDoorjam 03:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Michigan State University. Strictly speaking, this is not "band vanity" as the group is actually an MSU student organization with revolving membership (i.e. new members are recruited to join as old ones graduate). However, this distinction aside, it is not independently notable enough to merit a separate article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge As above. While they may not be a "major" musical group, they are worth noting on the University's page. See Dartmouth_College#A_cappella_singing_groups. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 07:57, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poccia

Rather blatant hoax by two anons with similar IP addresses whose only other edits are racially offensive vandalism. Yelyos 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log in yet, mostly due to the fact that I'm not obsessed with/center my life around Wikipedia. This is a very offensive word used at my university, and I want people to know it around the world. DrkLrdBill 03:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The word Poccia is a mid-western term that is used to describe a very lethargic individual. I am offended that Yelyos thinks it is a hoax. Reinman316 03:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

These are this user's first and second edits respectivly. See contributions. Sasquatch讲看 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Poccia is a fairly common surname. I can't find any evidence that it's used as a slur. Pburka 03:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After a quick googling, nothing comes up, WP:V applies here. Sasquatch讲看 03:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. I don't know what idiot would talk about a Poccia on his website. There would be no reason that Poccia would be found on google. Also, do you live in the mid-west? are you a college student? How do you know that when I see someone not doing their work i DONT say, hey, quit being a Poccia and stop playing video games. Reinman316 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is, you need to prove it somehow... again, see WP:V. As far as we can tell, its just a common name based on Google hits. And as it's not in any dictionary, we can't verify this information... Therein lies the problem with this article. Sasquatch讲看 03:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. These are his first two edits, because we realized how urgent the need was to spread the word of Poccia. How would you like it if your son was at a party and got called a Poccia and thought it was a compliment? THEN who would be the laughingstock? DrkLrdBill 03:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DrkLrdBill's comment demonstrates that the term is not yet notable. Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word - we only cover the word once it's been spread. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is there a full moon? Where is all this BJAODN coming from? JDoorjam 03:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless advocates can provide clear evidence that this word is used as describe. ManoaChild 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. silly. Hamster Sandwich 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above. Sandstein 11:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 14:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps we need a VVVBJADN section? --fuddlemark 17:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism and an attack page. - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as an attack page. What a waste of keystrokes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police

'Delete Merge with Hong Kong Police after removing POV material':Is not NPOV-Simply a vendetta against the Hong Kong Police and a promotion of the user's Political agenda. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

NOT Delete: The information it contains is so well-documented, and many of the case had even gone through legal process. If you disagree with those external information source, and simply think these NGOs (or I) have a political agenda, show your evidence.--RageAgainstWhiteWash 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that there are two (or more) sides to this and every story, and this article only addresses one of them. Yes, I will agree that there is evidence of abuse by the HK police, but I am sure that it is contested. I dont think you will disagree that it is a blatantly one sided article which is clearly opposed to the HK police. If you have evidence concerning this topic, try and present it in a neutral fashion. I suggest that you create a section on the Hong Kong police article entitled "Alleged human rights abuses by the Hong Kong police" and quote Amnesty International and the other organizations that criticize the HK police there. Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing in the neutral point of view.

Comment I tried to see this article, but RageAgainstWhiteWash, had vandalized the page. Do you guys think an Rfc is needed? Alot of work has gone into this, and it should be saved in a Merge into Hong Kong Police Force, but the POV is unacceptable, and I think Rage's behavior is as well. However, he's a newbie, so i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he eschews future confrontational behavior. Karmafist 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree. I have tried to talk to this user about merging the article, but they do not seem to see how a POV artcle is unacceptable, I do think they even see this as POV (keeps saying sbuse is "well documented"). I think since the user put in so much work, we should try to add a section to Hong Kong Police entitled "Alleged Human Rights Abuses" with the content (re-written of course) from this article. I have changed my vote to merge. --Gpyoung ^talk 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Voters may or may not wish to know that the author of this article repeatedly removed such large sections from Hong Kong Police Force that the article had to be protected. This article is, effectively, a fork of that behaviour. -Splash 03:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is currently POV and has some spelling/grammar issues, but I think it would be worthwile to keep it if it can be NPOV'd and cleaned up. GregAsche 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with GregAsche, except I think that it should be merged into Hong Kong Police Force. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary POV fork of Hong Kong Police Force. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at Human rights in Hong Kong or whatever is the formal English name of the Hong Kong police. Gazpacho 04:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork, Wikipedia is not human rights watch.--nixie 04:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly POV. BTW, the abuses by HK police is no different from other police force. If anyone wants to write, write an article on the misuse of power by police forces. However, this may turn out to be an original paper. -wshun 05:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge appropriate sections to Hong Kong Police Force as per ‡ Jarlaxle. Hamster Sandwich 08:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/merge as per Jarlaxle. Sandstein 11:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Point of view fork. Editors who observe the neutrality policy shouldn't be asked to battle to correct this sort of thing. Osomec 11:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Too large a subject to be merged with Hong kong police. Sarcelles 13:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Does need some cleaning up and de-POVing, but besides that its a perfectly legit article as long as everything in their is true, and if there are things you have evidence of being false, delete them from the article, don't delete the whole article. If it is not large enough after being de-POV'd, then Merge, but right now it is too large to merge. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 21:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That it's true does not make it worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. By presenting only one side of the story as per commentors above, this article is definitely POV. (Even though the information may be truthful.) -Hmib 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So we must present the story of the officers involved in the violations; we have articles for human rights violations in Iraq, Sudan, Guinea, and a bunch of other places. This is on a much smaller scale, but that should just mean it is easier to present both sides. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 05:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV, not even close to neutral POV. Cursive 23:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself is legitimate, and merging into other articles will make the resultant overlength. POV work can be done later on. Deryck C. 12:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] doors (novel)

Not notable, I couldn't find a novel matching this description. Also, it reads more like a school essay than an encyclopedia entry. Graham 03:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. First-person non-NPOV book report. JDoorjam 03:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• An update! Using what links here, I found the novel that this article is referring to is by Evan Hunter, writing as Ezra Hannon. The author is undeniably notable, but I don't think the book is. While I don't know how reliable the google test is in this case, a search for "dorrs+Ezra Hannon" only gets | 673 google hits, and I could not find much with that search that would assist me in expanding the article. However, I've removed a few of the pov statements, and added author information. The article looks much better now, but I still say delete as the book is not notable enough. Then again, I haven't read it. Graham 12:27, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Parker

Just another software developer/blogger. Name gets a lot of hits, but many are other people, including a Rutger Hauer film character. His blog site has an Alexa ranking of 3,738,292. I'd suggest userfying, but it was created by an anon. Possibly a speedy candidate for lack of assertion of notability. Niteowlneils 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the fact that it's an orphan is a bad sign. Niteowlneils 03:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:39:46, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Yohannan

Vanity, non-notable. Rmhermen 04:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:43:11, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skunkabilly

I am a devoted fan of punk, ska, and rockabilly, and there are indeed many bands that mix these styles, but I have never heard any of them refer to themselves as "skunkabilly." The original page was clearly a joke, containing bizarre rules for how you can be included in this genre ("following Hammurabi's Code," for example), and I nominated it for speedy deletion. However, this suggestion was shot down based on the fact that the term has many Google hits. But googling for this shows no results for an actual genre of music - all the hits seem to be usernames on message boards. The closest I can find is a non-notable indie record label called "Skunkabilly Records," which signs ska, punk, and rockabilly bands, but never refers to the music as "skunkabilly." I removed the joke bits from the article, but that still doesn't make it an actual punk subgenre.

If webcest, a term people actually use, can be considered non-Wikipedia-worthy, I don't think a term *no one* uses should be allowed. Inanechild 19:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to link it to the deletion main page. Inanechild 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We seem to have another noelrock here. --Apyule 11:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Gets only 100ish useful Google hits and many of those are usernames and things. However, there is a company called Skunkabilly records, and I suspect this may be an ad for them. -Splash 16:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neo-genre-name silliness. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I too am a fan of ska, punk and the like and have never heard this term. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 03:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzforums

First-person account verging on advertising for non-notable forum with 51 unique Google hits and an alexa ranking of 366,932. Zoe 04:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Note It looks like it was just speedy deleted, which is odd, because the text of the article did not appear to be a speedy deletion candidate at all, although it clearly appeared to be advertising/self-promotion. --Mysidia (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Right. The orginal version had been speedied several times as unintelligible spam, but I've restored the article as it has been resubmitted in a slightly better form. I still think the VfD is a good idea, though. Delete as vanity spam. Fire Star 04:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, ok: Delete as vanity --Mysidia (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I typed the article, feel free to change it if you like, I didn't mean for it to be an advertisement. 3: 25 14 August 2005 (UTC)--zhanster

• Delete: When you can make a forum article not sound like advertising, tell me. I'd be pretty happy to create thousands of articles on forums that are of similar size. -x42bn6 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As vanity. --*drew 14:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have edited the article to remove promotional language. Voters may wish to examine an earlier version such as this one to decide whether I have removed anything that they would consider important. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, it's because the two forums in context are having a mini-war with each other. They've had that war for something like 3 years. Side A hates Side B and vice versa. -x42bn6 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons articulated by others. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As it is spam. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though I post and even am a moderator over there, BlizzForums just isn't notable enough to warrent its own article.--Kross 21:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fora-related deletion discussions. -- Visviva 07:32, 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 REDIRECT to Midge Ure. Clearly not deleting, and clearly redirecting among the non-deleting votes. -Splash 06:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheridan Ure

Three Google hits, all of which are from Wikipedia content.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --TheMidnighters 07:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Midge Ure. Hamster Sandwich 08:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The number of google hits is not a guide for deleting content. --Apyule 11:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of this person or can you find anything about them in a citable reference that would make them notable? The burden of proof of notability is on the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard of this person. It is very difficult to "prove" notability. It's not as if there is a clear line for some things. --Apyule 02:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Granted, it can be difficult to "prove" notability in a borderline case, but most people would be willing to agree that someone is notable if an article can cite references from trustworthy sources. "I've heard of her" doesn't jibe with WP:CITE and WP:V. Surely you can understand that one person saying "I've heard of her" doesn't make someone worthy of inclusion. I'm sure we've all heard of plenty of non-notable people. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I only said that I have heard of her in direct response to your question. It does not in itself make her important. --Apyule 09:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect per Hamster Sandwich. Midge Ure is notable, she is not. Nandesuka 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above --Lomedae 12:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Nitke

No-name photographer who filed a federal lawsuit and lost - big deal. Non-notable and a vanity page. --BrownHornet21 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable enough, doesn't read like vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above. Sandstein 11:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, being a published author implies notability. --DrTorstenHenning 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes below this line merged from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The entry is extensive and detailed, but still self-promotion of an utterly insignificant figure. Dottore So 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, really. Losing a court case doesn't increase one's notability. Hell, winning it rarely does either. -Splash 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Perhaps in needs merging with something else. Hers was /is a significant case in an evolving area of law (at least in the US). -Zandr 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 8200 google hits, and 10 news.google hits indicate notability. Her notable lawsuit makes her notable.
• RESPONSE. What's so notable about the suit? It's not the first lawsuit to challenge the CDA, not even among the first. The entry is merely an extensive vanity page. Google hits are irrelevant.--BrownHornet21 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The case received national press coverage. IMO, that estalishes notability. Pburka 20:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (crossed out after merge to avoid duplicate vote, original keep vote is above). Comment I'm not sure what happened with this listing but there seems to be two entries somehow, or something, you'll find other keep votes here:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barbara Nitke including my first. Wikipedia is not paper, and this photographer is much more notable than some other artists that are documented here (Michael Paul Oman-Reagan, Vincent Clervi and much much more). Being in such a particular field and having art exhibitions satisfies notability as an artist, regardless of the court case. --TheMidnighters 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the two listings is that this entry (listed on vfd) is misspelled as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke, and the entry linked from the article is spelled correctly. --TheMidnighters 22:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have merged them. Could you please strike one or the other of your votes? Thanks. -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Well-written article. The lawsuit raises important contemporary issues. I am inclined to vote keep, but will first try my informal test: I'm going to look her up in an online database, to which I have access courtesy of my local public library, that contains the full content of The New York Times. If she is mentioned, I will vote keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. New York Times, July 28, 2005, p. 3, "An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law." She has had pictures in shows that have gotten brief news-item notices in The New York Times: September 5, 2003 p. 30, ""BOYS OF SUMMER," ClampArt... Standing out among the crowd of pictures by more than two dozen photographers ... men in leather, by Barbara Nitke...".I don't know whether it's the same person or not, but there have also been pictures published in The New York Times that have been credited to someone named Barbara Nitke, e.g. "Photo: Moira, left, with her dogs, Roxy and Tooter, on the documentary series 'Showdog Moms & Dads.' (Photo by Barbara Nitke/Bravo)", March 30, 2005, p. 3. Finally, I don't accept the "professor test," but she is a professor, and being president of the Camera Club of New York together with the other things would seem to make her clearly more notable than the average professor. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, Yes, that is the same Barbara Nitke. I believe she is the only pro photog using that name.--Outlander 21:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Also, two mentions in The Boston Globe. January 9, 2004, p. 3 is the Go! column which mentions "the Fetish Fair Fleamarket... starts tonight with a reading and slide show from author Barbara Nitke, who will be discussing and showing images from her book 'Kiss of Fire'" Another is a CD whose cover picture was "taken by the controversial Mapplethorpian S&M photographer Barbara Nitke." That seems to demonstrate some degree of notability. (Where is the Watch & Ward Society when you really need it?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She's well known in photography circles, and her loss in this lawsuit was big news in censorship circles because it was a severe undercut to Miller v. California 413 U.S. 12 (1973) and created a bizarre burden of proof standard for chilling speech. She is well-known in the SM and erotic photography circles. Jessamyn 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above posters. Hooper_X
• Keep This photographer is well known and the lawsuit got a lot of press. 68.20.179.193
• Keep Much work. Notable. --Vaergoth 08:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If only for the photography, which is well known and widely appreciated. The lawsuit is an interesting sidenote. --Outlander 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Not only highly notable both legally and artistically, but an extremely well written article IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] \x01a4

Looks like an esoteric C programming language reference to something in culture. I think it is too specialized and does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it's almost a bad joke... --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Same reasons as Mysidia. NickBush24 05:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 05:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please take a closer look at the criteria for speedy deletion. That I see, there is no specific criterion there that the article in question possibly meets. Being non-encyclopedic is not a speedy deletion criteria (and would be too vague a criterion to exist, since there is no unambiguous definition for encyclopedic). --Mysidia (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's not related to the C programming language, but it is non-encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like whoever speedied the article forgot to close the VFD as well. - Sikon 15:24, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Simpsons TV ads and identical List of The Simpsons television advertisements

Utter Springfieldcruft (and I say this as a huge Simpsons fan). tregoweth 05:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, why shouldn't users be able to look up what advertisements have used Simpsons characters? Kappa 08:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the hell would they be looking that up in a general-knowledge encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 14:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's the only one they have access to. Kappa 19:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Then they must not have access to Wikipedia or Google. I didn't even bother checking Google since there's probably an obscene number of Simpsons sites there, and here in the main The Simpsons article, there's 43 external links, including a new wiki, which this article should be transwikied to. Karmafist 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia, not a Simpsons fan directory. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per tregoweth, with the same sentiments. Sandstein 11:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simpson-cruft. --Calton | Talk 14:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if we'd want to put everything in WP this is out. feydey 15:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate list. The user who made this list was originally making individual articles on each ad, so I prompted them to do a list instead, which I find informative. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we allow Harry Potter and Pokemon to clutter WP, we (sadly) will have to allow the Simpsons as well. --DrTorstenHenning 16:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to keep this, why are you voting for a keep? It's hardly logical to make the cruftiness of others persuade you to vote differently. The quite extreme inclusionist sentiment that seems to be prevelent at VfD is anything but official policy and shouldn't force everyone else to vote for things they don't actually want to keep. From my experience inclusionists here tend to either rules lawyer policy statements beyond recognition or ignore them altogether. The argumentation seems very flexible as long as the end result is a vote to keep. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We really should have much more in Category:Television commercials seeing what a major part of modern culture they are. - SimonP 16:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We already have this information in much greater detail at List of The Simpsons episodes#The spots. It doesn't really belong there, though. Flowerparty ^talk 17:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow - and that article is over 80K, as well - good reason to break out a section!!! -- BD2412 ^talk 17:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I moved that section over to this article and dropped a link to it on the episode list article. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • So as long as someone makes really big articles, it should be kept, no matter how useless or relativly obscure it can be? The Simpsons are very notable, but Simpsons TV ads are not. And I'm saying this as a quite devoted (though early season-orthodox) Simpson fan myself. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think anyone is saying that "as long as someone makes really big articles, it should be kept, no matter how useless or relativly obscure..." I could write quite a lengthy missive on the lint that collects between my toes when I wear argyle socks, and even put in tables and pictures and so forth - but my toe lint is not regularly broadcast on TV, nor is it familiar to millions of people. Some TV commercial campaigns are notable, and those featuring the cast of The Simpsons tend to fall into that category. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll concede that they might be individually notable (a lot of things are notable), but they are not encyclopedic by any reasonable or useful definition of the term. It's still fancruft and the only ones that will come looking for it here are Simpsons-nuts; a very good reason to transwiki to a dedicated Simpsons-wiki. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, I'm not a Simpsons nut, and I find it useful to have here. In any event, it is surely better to have this list than to have individual articles on each ad (which another editor had begun to do), and it takes no more of Wikipedia's space to have this article than to have the same information included in the already overly large list of episodes (where it was previously). As my father would say, it can't hurt and it might help. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, same reasoning as BD2412 --Presnell 19:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Keep Simpson television appearances are notable, we have articles for each episode, and this is better than articles for each ad. CanadianCaesar 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Mmmm TV adsGateman1997 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nice work BDA! Hamster Sandwich 01:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but all I did was cut-and-paste the table from the List of The Simpsons episodes article, which was predominantly done by Kaizersoze. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well in that case... Nice Work to both of you! And thanks! Hamster Sandwich 01:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep owing to the notability of The Simpsons and as a reasonable breakout topic. 23skidoo 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:47
• Keep. Interesting trivia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but Move to List of The Simpsons television advertisements, as per naming criteria. Proto t c 10:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per User:Proto. This is an appropriate breakout from the main article. —Theo (Talk) 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter RPGs

• Do we really need an article on every kind of message board role-playing game or collaborative fan fiction project? Not notable outside of their own communities. Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic, collaborative or otherwise. Heh...I just nominated the same thing in my fandom for VFD just now, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, individual pieces of fanfic may not be notable, but whole genres of it are. Kappa 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right. This genre of fanfic is described nicely in Message board role-playing game, an encyclopedic article (that could probably do with a little improvement, but I'm a perfectionist). The Harry Potter article adds nothing not already mentioned in that article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We most certainly do not need more Harry Potter articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Comparatively well written but very pointless, as noted.Sandstein 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Gtrmp. Nandesuka 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Whilst I personally don't see the point as per Peter, the best point is made by Kappa. --Lomedae 12:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 14:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per User:A Man In Black. --Calton | Talk 14:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyc. We've enough cruft here already to re-cruft a whole de-crufted thing. -Splash 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cruft cruft cruft cruft. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no verifiability outside of the websites themselves. No impact on the world outside of their own communities. Friday (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:N, WP:V. Friday hits it spot on.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:00:45, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• weak keep Fanfiction is good but that is the only reason to keep it - Aeon 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per cruft vikings. Hamster Sandwich 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:48
• Keep, per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Crappy, really useless fan trivia. Delete. Proto t c 10:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well...it does state the obvious at the moment, but the topic is notable. Sam Vimes 12:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Perhaps it needs to be part of a larger article on the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter thus joining several of these types of pages together. --Gearspring 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poké Battles

Freeform RPG/fanfic cruft. This could easily be replaced with a redirect to message board role-playing game or fanfiction with no loss of useful information whatsoever. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. --Lomedae 12:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 14:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• I created this over a year ago, but I agree that it probably doesn't really deserve its own page. So, redirect and add a reference to it in Fanfiction#Types of Fanfiction, I guess. Andre (talk) 14:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• If a reference is going to be made at fanfiction, surely it should redirect there? Save the history and all that, else just delete. --Celestianpower ^hab 19:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Rillian 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Gateman1997 19:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JnanaBase

Article on an unremarkable website that does not meet the 500 user threshold. Article written by founder of website. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad, nn. Only 88 unique Google results. --TheMidnighters 07:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Googling for "jnanabase" returns 6630 hits. The article is not written by the founder of the site, it was written by a Wikipedia user. I just updated the article. Also, UninvitedCompany is bullying me and I have requested Mediation about this issue. See User:Www.wikinerds.org/Bullying. Www.wikinerds.org 08:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps userfy as the author/founder is here. Uninvited Company is not bullying, he just, commendably, got to the spammer first. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as spam and not notable, and watch all articles and images Www.wikinerds.org is trying to have spam linked by misinterpreting the licensing standards. NoSeptember 12:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or userfy if the author wishes JnanaBase is was already mentioned on Alternative outlets as a site that welcomes material deleted from Wikipedia, and that is was apparently was considered more than sufficient recognition. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing "userfy" suggestion per Michael Snow's observation--i.e. it's already userfied.
• Delete. --*drew 14:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. So nn, that it has no Alexa traffic data at all. -Splash 16:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a web guide. Radiant_>|< 18:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn, already listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Zoe 21:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not any more, apparently. Radiant! deleted it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:59:26, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of it without ever seeing the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:50
• Delete for reasons already stated. Moving to user namespace would be superfluous; all the essential information is already at Www.wikinerds.org's user page. --Michael Snow 15:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert by the website owner. User is spamming into many articles to advertise the website. - Tεxτurε 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert by the website owner. WAS 4.250 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Candee Jay

Non notable Werdna648

Keep Lots of Google hits. I see videos and ringtones. Artist with genuine recording deal. Notable enough for inclusion. --Lomedae 13:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. unenc, nn, vanity, WP is not a message board. --DrTorstenHenning 16:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs a serious, serious cleanup, but the artist is notable. She has an entry (albeit a rather skimpy one) at AMG. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave the stub a good POV-ectomy and and should be agreeable to most now. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Keep in recognition of the work of Fernando Rizo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:51

Apparently a UK thing. Changing my vote to keep in light of the changes -- seemed like a vanity before. --Werdna648 07:45, 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. Redwolf24 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Non-administrator's noticeboard

Created and solely used by -Ril- (talk · contribs), this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with WP:AN, WP:RFC and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Erwin Walsh

• Delete - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --Doc (?) 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An attempt to apply a thin veneer of respectability to Ril's complaints. --Calton | Talk 14:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Delete, vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -Splash 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the board isn't for my complaints. If you read it you will see that I haven't used it for that purpose once. I note that of the 4 editors voting delete above, 4 are people who have engaged with me before, particularly concerning the noteworthyness of individual Bible verses. It would be nice if people voting weren't those with an axe to grind against me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment, -Ril- this is just getting plain silly - stop trying to pick fights - and don't come with the self-righteous paranoia. I, for one, have better things to do with my time that persecute you. But this is a community - and unilateral actions, crusades, and attempts at management will always be unwelcome. When the whole world seems to be against you, then perhaps it is time to take the hint and consider your own position. Enough, just stop it, please. --Doc (?) 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against [me]", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT paper! :) Splash 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And if you had read my comment in conjuction with yours, you'd have realised it was a joke. A joke. Not wikilawyering and ruleswhining, but a joke. Not a funny one, evidently. -Splash 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant as stated above Soltak 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

To paraphrase Erwin Walsh: why? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, there are already quite a few places to complain about bad admin conduct (as you yourself know, having exercised that ability many times). This merely promotes pointless sectarianism and gameplay instead of co-operation and conciliation. Slac speak up! 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per previous arguments. Hamster Sandwich 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it looks like this will be another case of tyranny of the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if things were decided in Wikipedia through consensus decision-making, per Wikipedia policy, which would insure that "meeting everyone’s needs" is the rule, rather than tyranny of the majority, where the minority is told to go take a hike?--172.197.4.144 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought this was votes for deletion. Excuse me if I have misunderstood this concept. Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Which is one of the serious cultural problems with VfD. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am increasingly sick of these efforts to use the deletion process to shut down alternatives. I doubt if this page can go anywhere, but it should be given time to show its potential (or lack thereof). The page certainly is not interfering with other Wikipedia processes, redundant though it may be. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch both, and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a bad thing. Also you should take into account the WP:RFAr against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a WP:POINT. Look at the issue, not the principle. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • What existing process exactly? Oh, and that WP:RfAr comment is a completely irrelevant personal attack argument. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • That was already pointed out - RFC and AN. Also, that there is presently a RFAr against you is verifiable truth, so it's not a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 08:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is a personal attack because it has no relevance to the discussion. See Ad hominem. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• The purpose is to "discuss administrators"?! This may have something to do with Ril's recent RFC against Uninvited Company and his ongoing arbitration case involving me and some other admins. This sounds like Witkacy's Black Book to me, and I don't like it one bit. The funny thing is that non-admins, indeed Ril himself, frequently comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to vote here because of the arbcom case, but it is obvious to me that Ril's disruption is getting worse, not better. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with the RFC against UninvitedCompany or you, the timing is purely co-incidental. The page was planned for the last month. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah... right... oops...? Dmcdevit·t 20:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-administrator's noticeboard, but I do have a problem with one that's sole purpose is to second guess administrators' actions. If you notice a trend of misuse of administrator privledges, then file an RfC. This page could easily become a soapbox for anyone who disagrees with any administrator action, as well as an unnecessary source of dispute. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I also feel I should disclose that I am a party to the RfAr for -Ril-, the author of this article. However, this has no influence on my vote. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with WP:AN. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Having yet another discussion venue serves no purpose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Serves no purpose. Based on Ril's history, this is simple trolling. Carbonite | Talk 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Per my vote tally (laid out in detail on the talk page) post rewrite total (which I gave greater weight) = 93 keep, 21 delete; grand total = 103 keep, 53 delete. Either way, a fairly solid keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Kane

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

BBC official statement [3]: Jamie Kane Wikipedia Entries: To clarify the confusion about Jamie Kane biographical entries appearing on Wikipedia: The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work in the BBC (where we've been beta-testing for the last month). This was unauthorized and made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing. To confirm: the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. We hope you enjoy the game:-) Team Jamie

As a side issue: how on earth would "the BBC" (more exactly, "Team Jamie") know who made the initial entry? Have they provided a source for their reassurance upon this point? Most reputable news organizations are expected to verify facts with two independent sources. Are we expected to take them at their word simply because they are the BBC? Unless we've divulged our IP logs to them - which we certainly should not have done - they are in no position to state anything whatsoever about the identity of the person who created the first article - except perhaps that no one on "Team Jamie" admits to it. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like a pedant here, but MattC did not originally create this article, only the Boy*d Upp one. - Aya 42 ^T C 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The original creator of these pages was Jon Hawk, who still hasn't explained his purpose in adding fake material to Wikipedia. --William Pietri 04:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the first revision of the article (supposedly created by Jon_Hawk) did contain a weak note (bottom of the page) about this being a fictional page. While the original article was bad in most (or all) aspects, I do not believe it was done as part of an advertising campaign - more likely a person who is familiar with the game and conceived the fictional character as notable created the article in much the same spirit as most "StarTrek", "Doom" or "Halo" articles which treat the material as a matter of fact and only weakly note their fictional nature. 62.90.49.87 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What note are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Jon_Hawk's material was all fake presented as real. Somebody else added a note at the bottom, but not until it was tagged as disputed.--William Pietri 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign. --Barberio 08:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp - Aya 42 ^T C 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Retracting my original support of Deletion, and switching to Keep (of this article alone, not Boy*d Upp) since it now describes the game, not the character. And since this was not an attempt at advertising. --Barberio 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes from registered users

• Delete It's a marketing ploy. Doesn't belong here. --Peripathetic
• Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [4] --Barberio 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - Barberio later changed his vote to keep, but didn't strike out this entry Bluap 10:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fictional character. Kappa 08:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional character, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Any fictional character featured prominently in a major campaign by the BBC is notable. The article was created with the intent to promote something, but it has an "edit" button. Kappa 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Minus the advertising, the article is meaningless and does not provide any information of note. Since the article does not stand on its own, and is an attempt at advertising, it meets Deletion requirments. --Barberio 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as above. --Stereo 09:01:36, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• DELETE: Speedy deletion. If we let advertising campaigns poison Wikipedia, we might as well shut the place down. Krisjohn 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, emphasize it is advertising. Ad campaigns should be documented as such, especially if taking viral form, as an early disclosure to make misleading of the public with fictional "real" stuff a bit more difficult. --Shaddack 09:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep. When suitably marked as "fictional : accuracy disputed", and re-written to explain the fictional use, this (a) shows how fast, intelligently and effectively Wikipedia can respond to such silly marketing tricks and remain on higher ground, by simply exposing the truth rather than getting caught up in silly games. Also, (b) it largely destroys (or at least, can be written to counter) the viral marketing goals, if that is indeed why it was created. In this sense, it can be used to explain to the exact demographic who are being taken in by the fictional game, why this conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia. Lastly (c), if other marketers see the above process, and realise playing tricks with wikipedia will run a high risk of damaging their brand, rather than creating a "cool, viral" edge, then they will be less likely to abuse it in the future. mintywalker 10:54, 14 August 2005 (BST)
  • I disagree. Keeping the article purely to point out that its fictional viral marketing and how evil it is would be a POV, and go against the principles of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, not a source of comentary. The best thing is to simply remove viral marketing as it appears. It should be noted that keeping the marketing, but noting it as marketing, does not reduce the marketing impact. Infact, this whole debate simply gains more 'eyes' on the BBC which was the intent. So I feel it should be quickly directed to a deletion. --Barberio 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • a) seems weak to me. We'd have to explain that was the intention. Then it's an article about viral marketing, not this dork.
• Delete. Keeping it is not a particularly intelligent response to a marketing ploy. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Is faintly notable, apparently, and NPOV-able. Sandstein 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The Article has become notable, because its an atempt to use Wikipedia for viral marketing, but the contents are not notable information. The bar should be kept very high on what is notable for a fictional character to be recorded, Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character, Jamie Kane is not --Barberio 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • • In the abstract, I concur with Barberio, although the bar need not be very high (Wikipedia is not paper). But maybe this page (or the associated "band" below) could serve as a declared example of viral marketing in Wikipedia itself. Also, if this gets actually popular in the real world, the page would have to be recreated. Sandstein 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Any such information belongs in the viral marketing article, not in an article of its own. If in the future this character becomes so notable as that it should be created, then thats fine, however thats not the situation now. --Barberio 11:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Qwghlm 11:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for viral marketing. GraemeL 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GraemeL hits it on the head.k Nandesuka 12:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Viral marketing. --Spliced 13:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Genuine good-faith fancraft has a place in Wikipedia because it does no harm if researched to encyclopedic standards. Tolerating the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even when the article contributor has no direct connection to the promoter, does real harm to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Marketing has no place in wikipedia. Pahalial 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Boy*d Upp, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleete --Ben Houston 15:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - a bald faced abuse of WIkipedia for advertising. Nothing about the article is notable except that it exists here, making the "keep" logic circular. Lastly, we invite more and more of this we we do not delete this. I'd hate to see Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia become Wikipedia: The Free Viral Marketing Test Site. Tobycat (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given Uncle G's excellent rewrite. android79 12:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it can be added back after the game is finished for historical reasons. (see end of page)70.49.185.60 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • D'oh, logged out! That was me... Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 16:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but the game may warrant a genuine article if it doesn't flop; it's an unusual thing for the BBC to have created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mholland (talk • contribs) 2005-08-14 16:18:14 UTC
• Delete - If somebody were to turn this into a page about the game Jamie Kane rather than the fictional person Jamie Kane, I'd probably change my vote. Especially if the article explains that the BBC, as part of a marketing campaign, was involved in putting fradulent material in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Ugh. fuzzie 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though I like Barberio's suggestion. Malcolm Farmer 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirecting would not clarify anything for users. Someone who looks up Jamie Kane thinking he is a real person should find a straightforward explanation of his fictionality, not be required to infer from a mysterious redirect that maybe they've been duped.Craigbutz 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cleaned up the article to make it more clear that it's fictional for the interim, just to make things nice until it's fully zapped, but I agree that not to come down hard on this invites further abuse. In fact, I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think we need to nominate advertising spam such as this to be a criteria for speedy deletion. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep in light of Uncle G's fine edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definitely non-notable in and of itself. Ironically, the only arguable reason it may have become notable (in the last TWO DAYS OF ITS EXISTENCE) has been its linking with Wikipedia, riding on Wikipedia's coattails. Avoid self-reference. D. G. 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Possibly redirect to the article on the BBC's game that this character is from, if such an article exists... though my vindictive streak would love to get back at the Beeb by blackballing info on the game. Dayv 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If and when this actually becomes more notable than "The Famous Teddy Z", reconsider. Ordinarily I would lean the other way, following the principle that "even a notable hoax is notable," but in this case I think a message needs to be sent that Wikipedia is not to bee abused in this way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Corporations should be prohibitted from taking advtange of a publicly administered infospace. Adam Schwabe 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC) ;
• Delete. Agree with comments just above: even if a hoax, it is surely becoming notable - however, a message does need to be sent, and if this article is resurrected in an honest manner, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. As it stands, we can't allow Wiki to become a marketing tool. --Coolhappysteve
• Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable.  Grue  19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; already mentioned in viral marketing; perhaps redirect to there. Would never, ever have heard of any of this if it weren't for the fuss over it being on Wikipedia. Agree with Curps and FOo. If BBC wants a Wiki on this figment so badly, they can make their own. Oboreruhito 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Alterego 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect the current article to Boy*d Upp. If the character becomes truly famous then he can have his own article, until then I see no need. Thryduulf 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Vote superceded - see new vote below re-write marker
  • Actually, that's the reverse of the way that I suggest handling this. The primary article shouldn't be the band. The band fails WP:MUSIC utterly. It is, after all, an entirely fictional band. The game is what is the real thing in the real world. And the game is called Jamie Kane. Boy*d Upp should, if anything, redirect here, as per WP:FICT. Uncle G 00:32:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • Following the rewrite I agree and have changed my vote on both VfDs accordingly.
• Keep and expand. Page has been linked to in outside sources; for many people, this page is their first glimpse of Wikipedia. And 'viral marketing'? Frankly, my Wiki, I don't give a damn. Almafeta 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Viral marketing is not acceptable use of Wikipedia. Buy your own site, like ILoveBees did.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and advertising. - Motor (talk) 22:15:20, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a bare-faced abuse of Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. -- Arwel 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The page probably reflected a clueless member (perhaps of the team that produced Jamie Kane) rather than an orchestrated attempt by the BBC to add false information to Wikipedia. A reason to keep: Potentially mutually beneficial to BBC and Wikipedia due to increased exposure AND having just signed up for an account (it does seem quite well done) - it is potentially a good article to talk about use (and misuse!) of new web technologies. A reason to delete: Not notable (outside of BBC/Wikipedia) yet: If/when 'he' becomes notable, someone (outside the BBC) will add the page back. --Mintchocicecream 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This now is that article, so keep. --Michael Snow 00:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is an attribute created over time. This is clearly an attempt to create that notability by exploiting Wikipedia. Also, abuse of advertising policy. --johnd 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". This isn't even fancruft: there aren't any fans. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with strong prejudice. As per JohnD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--nixie 23:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've edited without mercy and done a complete rewrite from sources about the actual game, rather than about the eponymous character within the game, providing the "article on the BBC's game that this character is from" that Dayv (and Michael Snow, William Pietri, and Mholland) mentions above. The list of sources given in the references section indicates that this game has received some news media and other coverage over the past year. Whilst the original fake biography of a fictional character may qualify as viral marketing, the current straight summary of primary and secondary sources (some of them critical) dealing with a venture by the BBC into the world of interactive fiction does not. Furthermore, better this than a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game over the next few months repeatedly being deleted (which, based upon past experience, is what would likely happen if the article were deleted). Keep. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Applause for Uncle G's rewrite mholland 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new version. —Ashley Y 00:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-researched, balanced and impressive rewrite. --Mintchocicecream 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly weakly. This is currently nn as it has no fans and is a probably failing venture judging from the article. Although the BBC is a respectable organisation, pretty much any corporation could shuffle out a lowish quality VR game without it being notable. They might want it to "go viral" and might want it to get big, but so far it hasn't. -Splash 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is true that any company can create a game web site. However, the beauty of basing articles upon reliable third-party sources is that it does tend to filter out those games that don't get press coverage in national newspapers (where that coverage isn't a simple regurgitation of a press release) during their development and launch. Uncle G 03:02:22, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version. the best way to deflate this attempt to promote a fictional character is to present the real facts, which Uncle G has done splendidly. i think this will be more effective at deterring similar stunts than deleting the article. Chieftramp 02:15 monday 15 vii (bst)
• Delete: still not noteworthy, and we're still serving more as a means of advertising than as an encyclopedia. An ad campaign isn't in itself noteworthy. If the fact that the BBC—which ought to be concerned about its reputation for truthfulness, as a news organization—advertises by appearing to perpetrate a hoax might eventually become noteworthy, but not until and unless it bites them in the ass. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Jamie Kane is not an advertising campaign. It's an alternate reality game. And this article discusses the game's commissioning, creators, history of development, cost, writers, plot, and so forth. Please don't confuse other editors' comments in the preceding discussion with what is actually in the article and in the sources. Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • Of course it's advertising. It's a way of getting people—primarily teenaged girls with disposable income, who are desirable to website and broadcast advertisers—to sign on to BBC-run bulletin boards (bbc.co.uk) etc. Your article even links to the page for people to sign up for the game and website! - Nunh-huh 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, under this kind of definition, many things could be considered advertising. I mean, one could potentially argue that the iPod page is as much of a promotion of the iPod. As Uncle G mentions, if the page is deleted, "a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game" would occur. Surely, this article deserved to be kept. --Mintchocicecream 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Our iPod article was not created from within Apple headquarters. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Since the iPod article was created by a registered user, you have no way to make that determination, and if you care to check the page history for the article we're actually voting on, there is no way to know this one was created in BBC headquarters either. - Aya 42 ^T C 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The same can't be said of the "Boy*d Upp" article, where this material originated, can it. Who knew the BBC had such rabid running dog defenders? This is a web-based game that is less than two weeks old, created to funnel web-traffic to the BBC web-site. It has no other significance. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Yes, there may be advertising effects by having this article, but so do many of the articles here. AFAIK Uncle G isn't from the BBC and even if so, the significant edits contributed by him and other users are balanced and suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, apart from actually being in the UK, I have no affiliation with the BBC nor do many of the supporters on this page. Assuming you have read the discussion, it is clear this is a complete re-write and I can't see how this article originated from the Boy*d Upp article. Generally, the BBC has a massive amount of resources to wield at its disposal and would neither need to nor resort to relying on an open-content encyclopedia to funnel traffic to their website! In any case, Wikipedia is not a website frequented primarily by 14-18 year old girls and thus any advertising effects is minimal. --Mintchocicecream 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No. It's a game, as I said. By your excessively broad definition of advertising, Wheel of Fortune is not a game but is instead a way of advertising and getting people to watch television channels. Uncle G 03:21:28, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • You thought maybe it was art? The BBC clearly felt that a game to entice young teenage girls to acquire a log-in to the BBC website was worth a good deal of money, as they paid for its development for exactly that purpose. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
          • No. It's a game, as I said. Twice. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
            • And saying it three times won't make it any less of an advertising device. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This kind of Wikipedia abuse should not be tolerated by any means. --Andre (talk) 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • An article that straightforwardly summarizes 9 cited sources is "abuse"? Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
• Keep - The original article was possibly bogus, but the new one helpfully written by Uncle G is well-sourced, and deserves to remain. - Aya 42 ^T C 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• (weak) Keep- I've gotta say, the new edits have changed my votes. I am now under the impression that the original article was, at worst, a bad choice or presentation, rather than deliberate free advertising. I feel the article as it is now is both well written and possibly notable enough to keep. And I agree that not having the article may cause people to recreate it in the future. My only current concern is how new the game is. It may well be a big flop and gone in a few weeks. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:53
• Delete. Advertising nonsense. Andrew pmk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The original was indeed advertising, but the rewritten article is a good one. I invite everyone who voted prior to seeing the new article to have a look at it now and consider if they want to change or keep their vote the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm changing my vote. The article is now about the game, and the game was notable enough to have been covered in the referenced Guardian article. Kudos to User:Uncle G for the rewrite. --William Pietri 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The new article is notable, factual, and of encyclopedic note as to both the game and the issue of viral marketing. MCB 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although if having information on unreleased games is undesirable, perhaps rename it (Perhaps Prerelease:Jamie_Kane ?). I'm eagerly awaiting the game Oblivion, which isn't released yet, and was glad to find significant information about it here. Ron Johnson Ron Johnson
• Keep, this shows the Wikipedia process at its finest. All hail UncleG!-- Visviva 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, an important event in the development online interactive marketing. Several editors need to move beyond their petulant school yard hurt, and think in a more mature way. --ben dummett 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - What's the harm? --Rebroad 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. If it becomes significant at some point in the future WITHOUT basing that significance on exploitation of Wikipedia, then some article might be appropriate at THAT time. Shanen 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Things should get here after they are already known to people. this game thing is not even a trend at the moment, so this is pure advertisement (and even now that it gets deleted, the advertisement went thru, despite the fact the target are presumably teenager girls... how many among slashdot readers?) Jaromil
• Keep. It's all good now. Meneth 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. James F. (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that the page has been edited to refer to the game rather than the characters therein, and since the issue has gained at least a moderate level of interest on the internet, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping it. However, pages like the one for Boy*d Upp are still viral advertising completely without merit. Even with rewrites I don't see how that page could be made relevant, so I will be voting to delete it. --Parallel or Together? 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Because of the sensationalist and unnecesary coverage on BoingBoing and SlashDupe, what could have been simply removed as vandalism has mutated into a story which is more about Wikipedia and the way it is used than anything else. I think it has to stay now. Reluctantly, keep. --Jolyonralph 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep following excellent rewrite. Thryduulf
• Keep, now after rewrite, it deserves it's own article. --Thv 10:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has been edited and has substance now, why not let it live? --Wwwwolf 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite is allowable. --Benna 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Current revision accurate. --P0ppe 10:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Rewrite is good, and thanks to Uncle G for rewriting this and correcing Wikipedia quickly to remove advertising fake articles.--ShaunMacPherson 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Kizor 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is abuse -- Crucis 10:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a good and accurate article about a game promoted by a major broadcasting corporation. Www.wikinerds.org 10:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Thanks to Uncle G's rewrite, the article is now informative in nature, rather advertising drivel --Hemsath 10:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. If this spoils anyone's enjoyment of the game, then good! It's a damn stupid idea for a game in the first place! David | Talk 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to excellent rewrite. Michael 10:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep new version for now, maybe re-visit this process if the BBC's ARG disappears without a trace. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. Nice work, Uncle G. --Jdcope 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article as now written appears to be accurate and is backed by links to non-BBC external media. It's even pretty NPOV. Thparkth 11:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Suggest removing the external links so that this page is not part of the BBC's marketting effort. --Rcingham 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have things like Donald Love, afterall. -Lethe | Talk 11:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The articles surrounding this topic are good advertising for Wikipedia. It would be a shame if the people could not find out what this rumor was about. --Leopard 11:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: What about entries for (esp. famous) fictional characters in books? or movies? I see this as no different. As rewritten by Uncle G, the article is very informative, and just the sort of thing I would hope to find on Wikipedia. It would be difficult to find all this information elsewhere. unsigned vote from 11:33, August 15, 2005 User:Richardbondi
• Keep: looks good now. --WS 11:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No reason to keep. Noted in Viral Marketing article... unsigned vote from 11:39, August 15, 2005 User:Parkylondon
• Keep: thanks, Uncle G, for the excellent rewrite. FreplySpang (talk) 11:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy Delete. Marketting/Advertisement/Abuse. Completely undermines the credibility and purpose of Wikipedia. This game is barely a week old. At best, it is a news story, and belongs on a news site, not an encycolpedia. DeWayneLehman 11:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • How does replacing fictional rubbish with proper articles undermine the credibility of Wikipedia? Surely the opposite is the case? How does writing fully-referenced articles with cited sources undermine the purpose of Wikipedia? Is that not what we are supposed to be doing? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • The article does not belong here, regardless of how well you rewrite it. This topic's only impact outside of wikipedia is the press it has gotten for exploiting Wikipedia for Viral Marketting. Are you now going to edit articles for every game every created within days of its release? Is Wikipedia now a news magainze, or a game review site? You did a good job editting, but the topic does not belong here, no matter how well written. No amount of changes to the article will make the topic more relevant for Wikipedia. This belongs here no more than copying game reviews from CNN does. DeWayneLehman 14:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It's been rewritten, why bother deleting it? --Jambalaya 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: but emphasize the vandalism and viral marketing attempt (in themselves as notable as the game) with links to each. If notable articles warranted deletion because they involved unethical behavior or people, we'd lose most historical articles. The entire point of having an electronic encyclopedia is null and void if it is artificially time-delayed. Unigolyn 12:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: don't need this on wikipedia. Elfguy 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is an example of how wiki allows us to rapidly change what was an attempt at free advertising to a factual article about the game. There is no need to dismiss this out of hand because of the original content of the article. --h3l1x 12:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version. Looks good to me. --TexasDex 12:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: rewriting it for NPOV and spelling everything correctly doesn't change the fact that it isn't notable (yet) and shouldn't be here. Anyone who argues that it's notable because of this fuss has, to be brutally frank, completely lost it. - Motor (talk) 12:27:09, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • You're missing the fact that it wasn't rewritten solely in order to render the neutral point of view and to correct spelling. It was rewritten using information from cited sources. Several of those sources are press coverage of the subject matter in national newspapers, which date from 2004, pre-dating "this fuss" by 9 months. Uncle G 15:51:53, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell, the References section is a collection of links to blogs and a couple of PR stories in the Guardian. Hardly notability... if the game takes off the article can be recreated. Until then, it should be binned. - Motor (talk) 17:08:19, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • If your argument is that the fact that newspapers cover something, and that people discuss it, does not indicate notability at all, then I disagree. If your argument is simply about what level of discussion is necessary, then I agree that this subject is at the low end of the spectrum. However, as I stated above, an additional factor to take into account is that were this article to be deleted, we'd quite probably (as has happened in other cases in the past) have a succession of silly "Jamie Kane is a pop star" articles continually re-created in its place by players of the game over the coming months. Better an encyclopaedia with a proper article about a subject at the low end of the notability spectrum than an encyclopaedia with a succession of silly articles. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • I got a mention in two of my local newspapers last week. Wikipedia article here I come! If I trawl google I can find people have been discussing any old cruft and rubbish. The Guardian entries are PR stories... ten-a-penny. I simply don't understand your point about how there will be lots of "Jamie Kane" new pages -- you don't and can't know that. If that starts to happen then people are playing it and it's becoming more notable, in which case my position might change. Your speculation is hardly a good reason for keeping it... isn't Wikipedia supposed to catalogue notable things rather than predict them? - Motor (talk) 18:47:38, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

• Delete: If you allow this, then prepare for every company to spam their products on wikipedia. "Acme Widget 4.2-- this is a great product blah blah blah. You wouldn't find this in a normal encyclopedia. Perhaps after it was out for a while and became popular, but not as a PR gimmick. Scovetta 09:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It's too long for such a non-notable program, but Wikipedia is not paper and can handle it. There is nothing wrong with factual articles about products per se. But it should be shortened, if possible. Paranoid 13:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Current edit perfectly acceptable. Chris 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (WP:NOT paper!) Thank you for rewriting. While it's quite annoying of someone to make hoax articles, especially for advertising, it's not really the spirit of Wikipedia to delete this revised article out of retaliation. I feel like a lot of the delete votes are designed for punishment. Brighterorange 13:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Would have stayed marketing if no complaints, changed only under threat of deletion. Keep this, others will follow. Brewder
• Keep. Current version is fine. ed g2s • talk 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: New version describes the game in a neutral fashion. Knobunc 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Yeah, it was a pile of crap earlier on, but it's certainly acceptable now. -- phrawzty 14:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have no problem with articles about Star Trek and well known video game characters. If this game lasts for a long time, then maybe it will be worth an article. I would have no problem with an entry for this game within some larger article dealing with online video games, however if people think it is worth mentioning within Wikipedia. We should be working for quality of articles, not quantity, and creating a page for every thing people think up can get ridiculous. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Commercial advertising. rwilsonjr
• Weak Delete: Spam, but others have edited the article to properly expose the scam. STrRedWolf 14:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: With the rewrite it's a decent factual article. Moreover, it now seems to be a *popular* article, so we might as well have some good text there! Mark Williamson 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Whatever the aftermath, the intent was to promote a commercial product - a game. Wikipedia is not a marketing medium. Shoot 'em down! --getkashyap 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There seem to be numerous delete votes whose only reasoning is that the article's original version may have been a marketing ploy. These people should note that the article has since been fixed, and this claim no longer holds any water. Just because you think this is somehow "bad for Wikipedia" doesn't mean you get to bypass Wikipedia policy and invoke nonsense deletion rationale. Of course, this comment will never stop the simple-minded contrarians out there, so feel free to vote delete by definition! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 14:59
• Strong Keep gtiven outrageous accusations against the BBC, SqueakBox 15:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Current article is fine. --ElKevbo 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Rewrite is fine. Anomaly1 15:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Well done to Uncle G on the rewrite. johnSLADE (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Rewrite is informative and not misleading. Lionheart 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: As the article stands right now, it's very clear that this is a fictional character. I see no problem with the article in its current state. --P3d0 15:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I note that people are still voting for deletion based on the notion that the BBC or its minions were behind this. Apparently that is not the case. Were this intentional, I'd be tempted to delete as a warning, but I don't see any reason to punish the BBC for something a couple of fans did. --William Pietri 15:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "pour décourager les autres". Otherwise we send the message "come put in all the fake entries you want and we'll polish them up for you." A lot of good work on the new version wasted, but it's gotta go.
  • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will mercilessly edit it, replacing it with a real encyclopaedia article." not a messsage that you want to send? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will expand it, cross-link it, increase its Google-rank, and publicize your otherwise ephemeral unnoteworthy advertising device, hosting it and enshrining it for eternity" a message that you want to send? - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Rewritten version is appropriate, as it's about the game, not the "singer". It's now in the same spirit is the many other entries on fictional elements. We shouldn't degrade the quality of WP to "send a message". AnthonySorace 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia cannot abandon its responsibilities as an encyclopaedia even in order to punish those who act to harm it. — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: New article is good. DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
• Keep: Looks like it's been fixed to me. -- Skyfaller 16:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep*; New version is very imformative
• Keep Cleduc 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* -- Current version makes deletion needless, addresses issues behind original VfD. Also notable. -- Adrian 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, new revision practically is a new article. Turn the other cheek despite the intentions of the OP and the avoid self-ref rule. We fix misuse and move on. -Eisnel 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks fine now to me. Go Slashdot! Explodicle 16:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks great now! Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Lucien 16:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Gamaliel 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there was never any reason to remove this, editing it slightly was enough. (This was never even viral marketing) --Sindri 17:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The current page is NPOV and valuable --Lpm 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As currently written, it is a NPOV discussion of a notable internet issue --Hedgeman 17:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Original article was poorly written but not spam or an attempt at viral marketing. BBC gets no income from the game and current article is well-written and NPOV. RichW 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The current version is good and the precedent that it sets is that bad articles will be corrected. -- billatq 1806, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of y'all are just mad because you got hoaxed. Hooper_X
• Keep Article appears to be factual and corrent now. These sorts of things will happen, and they will get sorted out. mcdavis42 19:33 UTC 15-AUG-05
• Keep. Kudos to Uncle_G for fixing the article up. I hadn't even realised that the game was eponymous to the character. Or is that the other way around? Whatever. Dayv 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm annoyed that someone originally added false information to Wikipedia, but I believe this is the best response...convert it to a well-sourced, factual, NPOV, encyclopedic article. Thanks, Uncle_G. -- MikeJ9919 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the original article was intended to deceive. It sounds to me more like it was a poorly written article that was taken in the wrong context. Never underestimate the likelyhood of human error :).RichW 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article seems to have been properly redone to fit the wiki standards. SF2K1 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like articles such as Haunted Apiary, ARG coverage is pretty important on Wikipedia. Jal.

• Strong Keep. Now that the article has been restored to its proper state their is no reason for deletion. I often reffered to wikipidea for info during Haunted Apiary and OurColony Phoenix9
• Delete. There's no need for Wikipedia to become someone's advertising recepticle. -- LGagnon 20:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has become something more then the original post/intention and is worth preserving (especially after this level of interest). --Nycmstar 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In its present form it is informative, and innocuous.--Shoka 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting the article now that it has been rewritten fairly would look like petty vindictiveness. Keeping it in its present form shows WPs strengths. It says to the would be abusers "Sure you can TRY to subvert our encyclopedia, but we won't let that happen. We will take your biased ad and turn it into a real article which may or may not help you out. Spam us at your own risk." Keeping this article isn't giving our stamp of approval to either the (supposed) viral marketing tactics or the game itself anymore than the afore mentioned Haunted Apiary article does. Brian Schlosser42 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Current version is usefully informative. --Wanion 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maintaining my pre-rewrite vote. Even with the rewrite, this should be a Wikinews article, not a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is the place for notable, successful, and completed ARGs; Wikinews is the place for current events. This writeup is good, just post it up when the game is over. As an aside, if I had been a Wikipedian in the age of ilovebees and ourcolony, I would have voted for deletion of them as well, for the same reasons. obo 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say this is a notable ARG - it is the first aimed at a 'normal' user (14-18yr old girls are outside of the typical market for such games), it is the first ARG done by an institution as well respected as the BBC and it is complete in that many people have played the game to completion. 84.9.20.203 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's an entry for Doctor_who another BBC character, why not Jamie Kane DougieLawson 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be because Doctor Who is an international sensation spanning something like 40 years. -Splash 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is now factual. Bryan 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as I said in the main Talk page, what the BBC does is interesting - even their new work. The rewrite makes the article better, but I would have voted to keep it even in the old form. ---NathanO 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
• Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
• Keep - A Reality Computer game like this is quite interesting. Just reading about the AI interactions and the amount of work being put into this game by the BBC warrants an article I think. - Hahnchen 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
• Weak Keep Nice rewrite. Given this has made news elsewhere and is no longer misleading worth keeping. Wikipedia really does answer any question, even ones I would never be interested in. Interesting that this controversy could be counted part of the viral marketing of the game itself. Augustz 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete An abuse of wikipedia by a very minor game, which has little claim to be listed in even the most enclyclopedic encyclopedia. Moreover - although I believe the BBC that this was not done with their official approval - it was committed by people involved in this game for their own advantage. Winterstein 21:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is just false. The original author of the article has no connection to the BBC except that he probably pays for a TV license. 84.9.20.203 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
• Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
• Keep In it's current state I do not find anything to be wrong with the article. It is a legitimate entry about an actual game, it has both positive and negative information in the entry, making it seem much less like an advertising effort than a source of an answer for a legitimate question. tadpole256[[User talk:Tadpole256| *** ]
• Keep Regardless of what the original article may have been, it's been rewritten now, and deleting it out of spite would reflect badly on wikipedia. It's no less notable than some of the other articles out there --Random|832 05:36, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
• Delete An mo 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The re-written version looks very encyclopedic. Whether or not the character is notable as fancruft for the computer game, it is notable for the advertising campaign, and the wikipedia controversy. In fact, it might be worth adding a section on the wikipedia history. (In a way, it's a pity that votes from before the re-write still count. And what happens if 1000 people think it should be kept, but 1001 people think it should be removed?) Bluap 09:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well written article, no difference then an article other games or game characters. 84.153.25.225 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, Current article is well-written, however it tends to play into the whole viral marketing theme. Would rather see it as a sub-entry on a viral-marketing page than an entire entry on its own. Kemkerj 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable subject - regardless of how the original article came into being. Secretlondon 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Here today, gone tomorrow premise, marketing does not belong in an encylopedia. Delete post-haste.

[edit] Unsigned votes, votes from unregistered or very new users

• Keep The re-write is excellent. Just fact.
• Speedy delete Blatant abuse of the anti-spam rules here, exists exclusively to promote a product and is no intrest to anyone
• Speedy delete If I wanted to see a commercial I'd turn on the TV
• Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Junk. Useless Advertising. damiandamiandamian
• Delete It's marketing mbrewer
• Delete Commercial Advertising rthorntn
• Delete Commercial Advertising Qolume 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  You do know that the BBC is not a commercial organisation? ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising Baffledexpert 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To do so would be to play into the hands of the vandals. Exactly what they're trying to do is to generate "buzz" -- to make something seem notable which was not notable before, and to abuse Wikipedia to do it. That's basically the definition of Wikispam. This isn't an interesting case of "viral marketing" -- it is simply the abuse of Wikipedia. It needs to be deleted, and the offenders made incapable of doing it again, by blocking and banning. --FOo 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The "buzz" has been around for over a year. See the references in the rewritten article. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
• keep Uncle G's rewrite is good. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Fri Aug 19 16:08:51 GMT 2005

• Delete. Would set a precedent.
• keep Rewrite, but keep. The person who created this maybe a marketing scum, but its fairly well written. It should be subjected to intense fack checking & rewrite, though. pamri 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new version. Good information for people who want to know who that Jamie Kane everybody talks about is.
• Delete:marketing/abuse
• Keep Current version is encyclopedic, talks about the show, not about the fictional character
• N.BThe article could be seen as advertising BUT the BBC is not a commercial entity (for the time being at least). The BBC is not allowed to use commercial ads for revenue; if you look at the BBC site, you'll notice they only ever advertise their other free services, programmes, or radio. It can be argued that their TV service isn't free, but even that is changing (I'm not even gonna think about pointing to the relevant link! ^_^). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharker (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 12:51:00 UTC
• Keep: While the past versions were questionable, the current version seems perfectly acceptable.
• Keep: But keep the current article, which is really about a fictional character.
• Delete: Organizations that abuse Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda need to be completely removed and blocked from the system. Merely editing the entry, even if it is a complete re-write, still continues to promote their original agenda, and does not hurt them in any way.
• Keep: The article now acurately reflects the fictional nature. 131.81.200.154 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Same reason as Mark Williamson 165.21.154.15 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Original references to Kane, which could be morphed into cyberterminology Kaning, or the abuse of metamedia for marketing purposes. Useful origin in the matter, especially in the advent of these tactics.
• Strong Keep': would have been a strong delete, but with Uncle G's rewrite the article should now be kept.
• Keep: Keep the current rewritten article, is it's informational and not advertising. Also see the I Love Bees entry for an accepted article on a similar topic.
• Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
• Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
• Delete
• Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
• Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
• Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
• Keep, deletion proposal predates Uncle_G's edits. The article is about the game, hence properly titled. External links point to it. It is not vandalism. An article like this one -- factual, accurate, with references -- should not be deleted just because the original version was controversial. --EJHuff 04:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete marketing campaign plain and simple. And it's not because it is a controversy now that it deserves to live.
• Delete Better Wikipedia leave commercial product information to other websites, than it become Wikispameteria. 70.19.59.94 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The apology is irrelevant, what is important is the intent, which was to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. This is unacceptable however you look at it. StuartCarter 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read the BBC statement or Jon and MattC's post? The BBC's wasn't an apology, it was a categorical denial and neither Jon or MattC indended it as advertising. 129.169.154.82 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The current page is informational, and given that it has been mentioned on slashdot and boingboing it is now part of Wikipedia lore. Meta though it may be, the history of Wikipedia itself is worth considering. Right now it is clearly marked as fictional and NPOV, so I see no reason at all to delete it other than petty revenge. MasterDirk 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine to me... Gowdy 06:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• First edit.

• Keep It is not a marketing ploy it is just a reference to delete would be censorship - there is nothing that is not fact based in tha article now. -- grouchal

• From anon 82.70.110.60 (talk · contribs)

• Keep It's the same idea as the James Bond article. 12.73.246.156 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep current page is a notable online game and deserves to stay on wikipedia.
• Keep edited version fine DerekLaw 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keepthe edited version is just fine. I understand the concern for commercial products on Wiki, but Wiki is in fact not advertising Jamie Kane or the BBC. The article (the just-the-facts, ma'am article) is fine, and in the spirit of free info about everything, I think it should stay. -kelly
• Keep It's a game just like any other and deserves a spot in wikipedia, you'd have to remove A.I web quest and many others too.
• Keep Following the rewrite by Uncle G and the inclusion of a note about all the mess, this is now a real article about a game (like, say, the Doom3 article.) Boris SDC 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Delete" Typical BBC whitewash, why does Hutton spring to mind? Wiki was used for the wrong purpose 84.13.141.203 04:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rewritten article is fine 80.44.248.166 13:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect to Jamie_Kane. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boy*d Upp

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign.--Barberio 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since sanity is evidently scarce here, I ought to point out that the BoingBoing article makes no accusations, and cites no concrete evidence that this is actually an "advertising campaign" at all. It is merely a suspicion, which is why the headline ends with a question mark. Did you not get taught at school the difference between a question and a statement? Consequently I don't understand how you've rationalized this sudden jump from BoingBoing's premise...

"This page might be an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign"

...to the logically distinct premise...

"This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign".

I also suggest that any other sheepy votes based solely on Barberio's bogus reasoning, and shameless scaremongering, should be discounted.

You should also be aware that you are, in effect, creating a viral advertising campaign for the BoingBoing site amongst readers of this page. Perhaps we should confirm that Barberio isn't an employee of the BoingBoing site? :)

However, it is far more likely that the BoingBoing site launched a public attack on the BBC in the hopes of provoking the BBC into publicly striking back at them, with the hopes of exploiting the BBC's far wider audience as a means to gain more publicity for itself, thus increasing its potential advertising revenues.

Same applies to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane - Aya 42 ^T C 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Um... Well, not entirely sure why trying to make a personal attack against me is relevent here? Not entirely sure if you are supporting deletion or keeping either.

The original creator of these articles, a BBC employee, has said that he did not have official sanction on creating them, and has apologised for doing so. Can I suggest that instead of whipping up BoingBoing Vs BBC arguments, we just accept the apology, and quietly progress to the deletion of these articles. We don't want to make it hard on the guy for an honest mistake by turning it into a big argument. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. There was a smiley face after one of the paragraphs to indicate it was semi-humorous, but be careful when writing things like you did just there. People tend to believe you whether you're right or not. - Aya 42 ^T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:MattC only created the boy-band article. The original article was created by someone who is not necessarily affiliated with the BBC. RichW 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. The BBC and BoingBoing are both pretty well-known to much of the Wikipedia audience, and neither of them particularly needs this kind of stunt for publicity. Instead of responding to speculation with more irresponsible speculation, might I remind people that assuming good faith is a principle that can be applied to people outside Wikipedia as well. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I've never heard of BoingBoing before. - Aya 42 ^T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unlike the now edited JK article this is really useless. Boris SDC 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, letting advertising onto wikipedia will destroy all that is good about wikipedia. Bigtoe 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Real or not, this is stupid. --Hoovernj 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [5] --Barberio 08:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fictional band. Kappa 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional band, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as Barberio above. --Stereo 09:02:29, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Weak keep, document it is a game/ad, as an early warning for the other users. --Shaddack 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I echo Barberio also. Viral marketing on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated. --taliswolf 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It'll work so much better as a warning. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Like its fictional bandmember above, this "band" is apparently faintly notable. With an appropriate commentary (or tag?), this could provide material for marketing research.

• Any such information belongs in Viral marketing, not in its own article. --Barberio 11:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Barberio. Nandesuka 12:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Delete Spliced 13:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 14:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. If anyone wants to merge with Viral marketing that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ben Houston 15:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Barberio above. Dottore So 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane given Uncle G's excellent rewrite of that article. android79 12:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notable are they not. And I specifically oppose the redirect suggestion. -Splash 16:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Although Uncle G's work on the related article is admirable, my vote above stands since I'm not yet persuaded of the case for keeping the possible redirect target. -Splash 01:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the content is worth keeping, then it should be moved to a page about the game. But aside from abusing Wikipedia, I'm not sure the game is, as yet, notable. --William Pietri 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Viral marketing is not an acceptable use of wikipedia resources. --GraemeL 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The IP address does indeed come from the BBC :[6]. I suppose this is just some summer student being clever or something? Surely the Beeb is tech-savvy enough to know that we can work out if they added the article! -Splash 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to make it absolutely clear that this behavior is not considered funny, positive, or even acceptable. It is spam and vandalism; it is against the rules; and it is a blocking offense. In this case, because it's being done for the benefit of a widely-known organization, it's also an excellent opportunity to make an example -- to show that Wikipedia will refuse to put up with for-profit abuse. --FOo 17:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • True, to WP:AN/I perhaps? I suspect, however, that a mere admin is unlikely to want to admonish the BBC; perhaps the Foundation should. -Splash 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • "admonish the BBC"?? Because somebody wrote three sentences on Wikipedia during his coffee break? Hello? It's not like this is a concerted attack on our foundation principles. It is even a great example of how such an approach backfires on Wikipedia, where people can now read that the band is fictional. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Jamie Kane in light of Uncle G's edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 17:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So we're supposed to keep it as notable based upon the fact that someone trolled Wikipedia? How come we don't ever keep other trolled articles then? E.g, Mother Fucker was an attempt by an unknown Indonesian male to put spam on Wikipedia. It took place in July of 2002. The police have no further leads! External links: http://www.motherfuckerswikipedia.com/. Come on, this is just silly. D. G. 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to viral marketing. Should this turn out as something notable, revert to independent article. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable.  Grue  19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as an example of viral marketing by the BBC, and merge the Jamie Kane stuff into this article. I've removed the self reference to make it suitable for our mirror sites. Thryduulf 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Jamie Kane following the rewrite of that article. Thryduulf 09:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Jamie Kane. However, revert 'guerilla marketing' aspects as hopelessly POV. Almafeta 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and advertising -- I'm sure they've already got their interest boost from this little fuss, though they might want to think over what damage has been done to their reputation. - Motor (talk) 23:16:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. -- The Anome 22:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia. -- Arwel 22:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane based on Uncle G's rewrite. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This marker represents the point where Uncle G rewrote the associated Jamie Kane article

• Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". - Nunh-huh 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane, which appears to contain a better explanation of what's going on. --Alan Au 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is, if the Jamie Kane page survives its own VfD. Otherwise, delete. --Alan Au 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• As stated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jamie Kane, this purported band is entirely fictional, and thus fails WP:MUSIC utterly. As per WP:FICT, this should be a redirect to Jamie Kane, which is now an article about the alternate reality game by the BBC by that name, which includes this finctional band name as part of its storyline. Uncle G 00:33:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jamie Kane. --Andre (talk) 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete* People like this should be sterilized to avoid futher pollution of the gene pool.
• Delete* Pointless advertising.
• Delete or redirect to Jamie Kane. --Parallel or Together? 10:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jamie Kane. David | Talk 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane, for the reasons stated above. --Jdcope 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane --WS 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Abusive marketing practice.
• Merge and redirect with/to Jamie Kane. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and/or redirect I'm not sure the actual game deserves an entry, but certainly this shouldn't be one at this point. If the game catches on and becomes hugely popular, then fine, but at this early stage, it shouldn't be an article. (My vote on Jamie Kane was it could be included in a larger article about online games.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect To the Jamie Kane article, which explains things fully. Mark Williamson 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. AnthonySorace 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising.
• Redirect to Jamie Kane — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane Daemon8666 15:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane --nwatson 15:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to Jamie Kane. Kaldari 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. WAS 4.250 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane -Eisnel 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Jamie Kane or whatever the original article was as long as the Jamie Kane article reflects the controversy and fictious origins of this - same for all similar pages. Move for admins to speedily convert this over to end controversy. - Master Of Ninja 16:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane, SqueakBox 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. bpt 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. RichW 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. —Wanion 21:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete I second Alan Au, redirect if Jamie Kane survived, delete if not. obo 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jamie Kane. feydey 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable; unlikely to be searched for and not enough msterial outside of what is already covered in Jamie Kane. mholland 02:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with and Redirect to Jamie Kane. (Merge [7] version) Tenbaset 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete then redirect to avoid keeping history but block future recreation Mozzerati 21:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• "delete" Block BBC to use wiki, that way the BBC wont be able to acidently on purpose create advertising, then blame a sheepgoat when caught. 84.13.141.203 04:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Round-robin networks

I don't know much about the subject, but I've only found 11 Google hits. [8] So surely it can be merged somewhere?

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep, I make it about 82,600 google hits. [9]. Kappa 10:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Local Area Network.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Local Area Network - which, by the way, needs some expansion... if I have time I'll give it a try later. --Raistlin 13:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Original is correct. Only 11 exact google matches. Dottore So 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Token ring which is the proper name for this. -Splash 16:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, sort of anyway. Do networks ever operate in a strict round-robin sense? They all use one of the IEEE 802 standards and none of those is specifically a round-robin proposal, since you might have nothing to transmit and would just pass the opportunity onto the next station in the ring, so a token ring is closest by description. -Splash 16:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:55
• Delete I believe this is about a mesh network which is the more appropiate name. If redirected, it should be to Wireless mesh network. As I recall, a Token Ring is a form of a star network, each point on the star is a ring, and not a true mesh. Vegaswikian 05:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, and expand "Round-robin in networking" isn't limited to LANs (and no LAN topology is really round-robin so the current article isn't that hot) and this article should turn into a general purpose description. You can do round-robin at any level of the OSI model for load-balancing, clustering, whatever. SchmuckyTheCat 17:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Hearn

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 5 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sandstein 10:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Lambrect

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete. Nothing on Google. Tualha (Talk) 09:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sandstein 10:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eddie spelled my name wrong. Nick Lambrecht 04:51, 15 August 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Asahi

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "The prophet Eddie"? (snort) Tualha (Talk) 09:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sandstein 10:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Asahi is not just beer though. --zippedmartin 23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a private joke. Nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia. Fg2 07:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Joke page. --Dysepsion 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Schism of 2005

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sandstein 10:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a private joke. Fg2 07:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Church of Kirin

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sandstein 10:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Erwin Walsh
• Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though Kirin is also a mythical thingy, I remember from Talisman of Death, oh the education of youth. In wikip under Qilin. --zippedmartin 23:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently a private joke. In Japan, a kirin is a (real) giraffe or a mythological creature, depicted in a logo on the beer can of the same name. Fg2 08:00, 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. Redwolf24 04:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opa!

• Delete: We may as well have a page dedicated to 'Oh!' or something. In either case, useless. x42bn6 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. bogdan | ^Talk 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot more could be written about this expression, which is famous here. Since Eh has an article, Opa! should, too. The title must change, however, because we have two ways to use/pronounce it. "Opa" can also mean "hey you made a mistake" or "I am happy" depending on how you pronounce it and how long you pronounce the O sound. "opa-opa" is also related, and I think it's used in songs. If you delete it, could someone please contribute it to my wiki? Www.wikinerds.org 10:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, this article can become encyclopedic.
    • We're not voting the potential in here. Right now it's a dictionary definition and as such it does not belong here. bogdan | ^Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia is not dictionary, it shouldn't have Eh, either. What I see here is double standards: What pity is it that eh, which is about the English-speaking world, is kept, while Opa!, which is about Greeks, is deleted! Www.wikinerds.org 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... It's because of the international conspiracy against the Greeks. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I copied the article to my wiki under the GFDL. Www.wikinerds.org 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Piffle. I'm a native Swede and I certainly haven't voted to keep eh and neither would I if it were VfD:ed. I've also VfD:ed native Swedish slang like blatte and svenne. This talk of making it encyclopedic is a really irrelevant self-supporting argument. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has encyclopedic potential.Kappa 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki, per Peter, bogdan. I don't see encyclopedic potential at all. Dottore So 16:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an example of a non-English interjection that is characteristic of a particular ethnic group or nationality, like eh or oy. It has cultural implications beyond a dry dictionary definition. The article should be marked as requiring improvement, however. --agr 16:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oy vey! When exactly did we become a dictionary? All interjections, slang words and idioms have some sort of cultural implications. Some more significant than others, but they're still expanded, anecdotal dictionary definitions. This is hardly nigger or gringo. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. Denni☯ 17:54, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Delete unless "encyclopedic potential" is actualized before VfD expires. --Alan Au
• Delete. Foreign dicdef in its current state. Would consider changing vote if article was expanded. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dic-def. Hamster Sandwich 01:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This should be marked as a stub not as a VfD. MATIA 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm trying to expand it, I believe it should be marked as a stub and then marked for cleanup. There is also Opa. Certainly wikipedia is not a dictionary but wikipedians shouldn't go around deleting stuff when they could expand them (or as official policy says If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia.)
  • Probably, apart from expanding, we should merge Opa and Opa!. MATIA 15:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope that those who voted delete, will check Talk:Opa! and change their votes.MATIA 18:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Mark

Very likely an advertisement, no apparent notability. See also comments on talk page. Sandstein 10:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, if nothing else. --Apyule 12:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Lomedae 13:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My comments on the talk page were: Is there any independent source for this? Most of the information seems to be lifted directly from the commercial web site. Doing a Google check shows various press releases from the company behind the Imperial Mark, but nothing AFAICS from anyone independent. A news item such as this: [1] originates from IC, the International Charter Organisation themselves. A search of Omega's own site reveals no mention of the Mark, there is likewise nothing on the Harrods site, nor as far as I can see on the Rolex site. DavidFarmbrough 09:00 (BST) 15 Aug 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Redwolf24 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society

Wikipedia is not a web directory. See WP:NOT. If relevant to the topic, these links should be part of the external links section of Watchtower Society. -- Karada 10:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge with Watchtower Society. --Apyule 11:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge with Watchtower Society. --Lomedae 13:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• The page has been repeatedly created under various names - see redirects at links to "Jehovahs's Witnesses" page. Definitely should not exist as a separate article, and has already been merged to Jehovah's Witnesses. Speedy redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses (to discourage recreation), no merge. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful with Watchtower Society (I personally see only useless links) and then delete this page. Harro5 00:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge with Watchtower Society. brozen 07:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title 28

Title 28 is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It includes provisions about quite a few judiciary-related topics, and relevant sections are cited in the appropriate articles, such as in Diversity jurisdiction. Title 28 doesn't need a separate article. If it did, the article wouldn't be a POV diatribe against one extremely minor portion relating to bankruptcy law. (Title 28 isn't even the key title on bankruptcy, the substance of which is covered in Title 11.) Delete. JamesMLane 10:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sandstein 10:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kappa 12:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JamesMLane's vfd was well taken, however Kappa's edits have taken the article on its way to becoming encyclopedic. Flawiki 12:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This version is much less objectionable, but, despite my appreciation for Kappa's work, my "Delete" vote stands. Trying to organize our coverage of the U.S. Code according to its 50 or so Titles would be a waste of effort. Readers search for specific legal topics. Not many people would care about which specific subject areas happened to be covered in Title 28. Nothing links to the article except one offhand comment on Talk:Bankruptcy, which now turns out to be a typographical error. Our article on the United States Code lists all 50 or so titles and includes a link to the U.S. Code website of the U.S. Government, from which further hyperlinks gave the more detailed tables of contents, for anyone who wants to know what's in a particular title. JamesMLane 15:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Title 28, United States Code (keeping Title 28 as a redirect). As an attorney, I can definitely see how this would be useful. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless sub-stub. We're not a law directory. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That's right! We're a Pokemon directory. Get this law cruft out. That's no vote, I'll leave exact arangement of US laws to US lawyers --zippedmartin 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to United States Code per JamesMLane (15:19, 14 August 2005). --Alan Au 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't favor a redirect because I don't think anyone would search for this article title. By contrast, some people have heard the phrase "title nine", so Title 9 is properly a redirect to Title IX (which isn't Title 9 of the U.S. Code). We also have an article on Chapter 11. Those cases, however, are exceptions, where an organizational number has become widely known. JamesMLane 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much better now than it was when originally vfd'd, though I'd support BD2412's renaming proposal. --Arcadian 00:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. If it can be built up to 2 or 3 paragraphs in a few days, I'll change my vote. I'll check later. Karmafist 01:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Weak Keep if there can be just a little more meat on this badboy. It needs to be cleaned up. Karmafist 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:56
• Delete per JamesMLane. The United States federal courts created under Title 28 are worthy of an article, but Title 28 itself is not. --Metropolitan90 06:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless it can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep lots of issues | leave me a message 08:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but only as a redirect. As an American lawyer (and one who has contributed substantially to the United States Code article), I don't see any value in a separate article on Title 28 as such; it should be redirected to United States federal courts since that is its subject matter. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • United States federal courts explains nothing about Title 28. Kappa 14:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Which is a good argument for improvement of that article, not for maintaining a duplicative article. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • But what is the argument for creating a confusing redirect to it? Kappa 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it with other titles in the US penal code. Radiant_>|< 15:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a part of the penal code, but it should be merged with other relevant articles. Russ Blau (talk) 18:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany and weapons of mass destruction

Looks like anti-German propaganda to me, nothing here is really educational. 80.131.68.126 10:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete If people who start an article can't be bothered to observe the neutrality policy their work should be deleted to demonstrate strong disapproval of their approach. It shouldn't be left for others to battle to correct it - or worse, left as it is. New articles are only legitimate if they are neutral. Better to wait for someone to start this again. Osomec 11:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV crud. Unlikely to ever get better. --Apyule 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Keep after very good edits by Christopher Parham. --Apyule 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Changed my vote. BorgQueen 12:59, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid and interesting topic, although it probably needs to be stubbified down to the lead only. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:24, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Changed my vote; Parham's argument is persuasive. Dottore So 16:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an article about WMD in a country that....has no WMD? -Splash 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you'd care to nominate Brazil and weapons of mass destruction, Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Poland and weapons of mass destruction, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Iran and weapons of mass destruction? Why does the existence of this article depend on Germany having weapons of mass destruction? The article certainly makes no claim that it does. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
    • First, saying in VfD that "we should keep X because you didn't nominate Y" is rarely a meaningful argument. Second, I'm not going to deal with the last two examples you cite, for reasons which I imagine are obvious. As to the first three, the Brazil article says, amongst other things, "...a covert nuclear weapons program was pursued by Brazil under a military government in the 1980s.", the Canada article says plenty about why the issue is important there: it evidently decided an election and they were partners in the Manhattan Project, the Poland article says "...during communist times had active programs in the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons". The Taiwan article is more difficult, and could perhaps be discussed, but, the statement from Beijing that the obtainment of nuclear capability would lead to "immediate attack" with all the geopolitical implications of that is fairly important. The Germany article, on the other hand, offers no significance to the issue of WMD in Germany at present or in the past (apart from component manufacture which most industrialized nations do too).-Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Looks sufficiently NPOV to me; that is an editing issue, the article is good enough and about an important subject. --Mysidia (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting subject, and stating that Germany has no WMD is clearly an oversimplification. Moreover, Germany at least had WMD in the past. Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Did they? When? If they did, it should be added to the article and it would then probably by keepable. The WW2 V-rockets don't count. They were just missiles. -Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Added. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
      • Mmmmmmmm. I suspected this was what was in mind. In which case, the article ought to be reduced down to that stub; at that point I would vote to delete such a small stub since it is covered far better in the articles you mention in that sentence. -Splash 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And at least during the 1980s, AFAIK nuclear WMD were stored in Germany, and the German Army (Bundeswehr) maintained Artillery Special Platoons (Artillerie-Spezialzüge) that were equipped and trained to handle nuclear ammo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Forms part of a corpus of analysis broken down by country, even if inadequately for the moment. Dottore So 19:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved significantly, due to such impressive work done by Parham. BorgQueen 20:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Inclusive of state of non-mass-destructiveness. Absence of something does not mean an article saying it is absent is nesesarily irrelevant. --zippedmartin 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:57
• Keep. Good rewrite. -Hmib 04:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to a better name and merge 24.1.97.187 05:24, 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. The votes are actually numerically almost equal, which would be a no-consensus keep. But most of the deletes were cast before the initial stub which is now in place was written and are clearly rejecting the adevertising content that was present at the time. All but one vote after the stub would keep — and one of the deleters allows for a "major rewrite" too. Further, the article has been further expanded since even most of the keep votes. -Splash 07:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gites in France

Entire article was written as excuse for external link to tourist web site. --rob 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete These articles should not even exist on wikipedia.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. --*drew 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's a major rewrite - there is certainly room for a good article on the topic. Dlyons493 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Nelgallan 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hang on a minute folks!!!. the subject is encyclopedic, (though oddly Gite seems to be about an Indian game, and w:fr:gîte does not exist, (the correct spelling btw is gîte with the accent)). This is a major part of the culture of France, being rented accomodation, run by the company Gites de France [10]. Now granted, this article is pretty terrible, but I'll replace it with a deent stub, so super strong keep Dunc|☺ 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with you (including the rename), *if* gîte is not a brand, but a common/generic word used in France. I'm a little confused, though, since the web site suggests of starting in 1951 with something "new" and non-traditional. But, surely there were summer homes before than; what were they called? Are all rented summer homes in France "Gites" (as answer.com implies), or is this just a brand? Is this the same as a Dacha? If it's a uniquely French version of Dacha than an article is easily (or as easily) justified. I just want to be sure we're not promoting somebody's brand, I admit ignorance about France on this. --rob 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a generic name. I think Gites de France act act as an agent for individual property owners. They are of course different culturally from Dachas, but it's the same idea. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. By an amazing coincidence, gîte has now appeared at French Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell it's no more informative than my French-Swedish dictionary definition. If someone can confirm that this term is commonly used in English, I will change my vote, but not if it's exclusively French. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote it. French vfd is at w:fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer - I can list it for you if you like. And yes, they have enough cultural history, importance and the size to be encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not about to get involved in the internal matters of a wikipedia in a language I don't really speak. That it only appeared as an article now is not exactly speaking in favor of its notability, so please try to convince me with more than just assuring me it's encyclopedic. Is it used in English or not? Please show some examples. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • 415,000 Google hits restricted to English, though that in itself is not particularly strong. To reiterate then, the word gîte is used specifically for holiday cottages in France, a subject which has a history and cultural impact that is notable, hence encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Keep. Peter ^Isotalo 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See "gîte" on Wiktionary ;) Korg 00:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the "historic and cultural impact" expanded. Otherwise, possible redirect/merge to Cottage or Dacha. If unable to expand, transwiki to French Wiktionary. --Alan Au 23:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Cottage can be tranlated in French by "villa" or in some case by "résidence secondaire". In both case they are not vacation accomodation. A gîte is a type of vacation accomodation usually (but not always) for familly. Also, a datcha is also "datcha" in French, no relation with a "gîte". Romary 09:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Though I don't think I've ever stayed in one (tents are cheaper), they've certainly been advertised as such to british tourists for many years. Not sure I've got any holiday pamphlets from the 80s around to scan though, and that's the kinda thing that has 0 web presence. Not as common a term as 'villa' maybe, but certainly common. --zippedmartin 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like Dunc, please consider that gîte (and "Gîtes de France", a famous vacation accommodations chain) is a major part of the culture of France. Korg 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (See "gîte" on Wiktionary).
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
• Delete as dicdef once the spam is removed. Vegaswikian 05:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is really a subject. The link to "gîte de France" can be removed. The subject can be developed by adding information on "Gîte d'étape" for the hikers and "gîte rural" for vacation accomodation. Romary 09:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oh my god, I must be having a bad day! Anyway, I can honestly say that Gite (hat over the i) is a word in day to day use here in France and does, indeed, refer to a nationwide letting of cottage-type places. The article is a bit naff though and could do with a less spammy re-write. --Marcus22 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep From time to time, over the years, I have actually wondered just what a gîte is. I know it's some sort of holiday let thing, but how does it work? Are they owned by companies, or by individuals who stay there themselves? I have this notion that they are rural things, usually converted farmhouses - but is that true? Can there be gîtes in towns? And why are they called "gîtes" - a marketing thing? Is there a distinction between gîtes and other holiday homes? When did this gîte thing come about? I hope the article can be expanded so that I can get some answers.--Finbarr Saunders 22:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raymonite

This looks like a joke or hoax to me. I checked with Google to be sure: no hits for "The Book of Laws Inherent to Eternal Substance" and the only relevant hit for Raymonite is this. Sietse 12:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a religion that a bunch of college students have created and use as a story that they continually expand upon. They are even writing a book about it. The text referenced - laws inherent to eternal substance (L.I.E.S.) is a few pages scribbled on lined paper. This article should not be deleted, it should be updated to accurately represent what Raymonites are. But - it is true that while the religion is not real, a Raymonite (someone who believes the religion) would be exactly what the post says. It's just that there are no real Raymonites yet.

As for the fortunecity homepage, I have never heard of it even though I am one of the creators. I know all 30-ish people involved, and I don't think the page is one of their's either.

• Delete. What religion is this?--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's a vanity page. The fortunecity homepage ends with "Email: E-mail me, I'm god". Right. --Lomedae 13:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --*drew 14:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual though relatively unknown. --I'm not a user.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesuit High School, Portland

Nothing noteworthy about this particular school IMHO, the initial entry isn't even barely a stub. Lomedae 12:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• keep, established schools are highly noteworthy. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 13:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the article has been edited. Still, for the life of me I can't see why people don't just create a Wiki-Schools project, instead of incorporating a directory of all schools great or small into the main Wikipedia. Most schools are only notable to their region and (former) students. I strongly disagree with the statement that "all established schools are noteworthy". Just my 2 cents. --Lomedae 14:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• You obviously have the right to your own opinion. Kappa's opinion is not official policy either. Delete as NN. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, meets notability requirements. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Keep - Schools are intrinsically noteworthy. --Celestianpower ^hab 17:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not established. Denni☯
• delete and concentrate on an article about Jesuit schools in general which might have the potential to be interesting and useful. --TimPope 19:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all schools, especially high schools. Pburka 20:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as always. — RJH 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. See Wikipedia:Schools for background on the "schools" debate. --Alan Au 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Highschools are notable. However I would question all Middle Schools and lower that don't establish some level of notability beyond "existing". See User:Gateman1997/Schools_for_Deletion for my stance on schools.Gateman1997 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What on earth is the point of chopping Wikipedia into little pieces? There should be one guide to everything, because then people don't have to know where to look. Rather than creating new offshoots, all the existing offshoots should be folded back into Wikipedia. 82.35.34.11 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
• Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I would like to see an article on Jesuit High Schools. If I knew anything about them, I would start it. But I don't. Which is why I would like to see an article on them. We're going round in circles. Oh yeah, delete as individual schools are not encyclopaedic, WP:NOT a web directory. Proto t c 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well established notability. No one's stopping anyone from starting a separate article on Jesuit schools in general, too. Lack of a more general article is not a good reason to delete the more specific case articles. Unfocused 21:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please the article is informative and helps wikipedia towards being the sum of all human knowledge Yuckfoo 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep This is currently the most selective high school in Oregon and people apply to go there like a college. Needs to be expanded, not deleted. Guerberj 23:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. It clearly says in the title that it's a high school. —RaD Man (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Rosen

Appears to be non-notable vanity. One newspaper article doesn't make the subject notable IMO. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

keep try to google better, there's quite a lot of info on this case it seems --Raistlin 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

keep It has decent media coverage. --Lomedae 13:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Leong

Probably a defamation attempt. No google hits for this name in the context referred to by the article; at any rate, not notable. Sandstein 12:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or even speedy, idem, not notable --Raistlin 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 14:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. CSD A7. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:22:52, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail Help Center

A request for a modification to the Gmail service. This should be adressed directly to Google, not written up here. Delete as non-encyclopedic. Sandstein 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete imho. --Raistlin 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. Appears to be an attempt to communicate with the subject named in the title, so it can be speedied. I've marked it as such. android79 15:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Excellent call by android79.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:19:56, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Speedied as contact attempt. Entire content was "Albanian language in Gmail should be active too.... I dont understand why it not tranlated yet..." Niteowlneils 18:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrient premix

• You've got to be kidding me... Actually the way it is right now is fine. I can live without the link. Nutrient premixes are a billion dollar industry world-wide.

This was posted by User:Markfanion, who has created a row of articles which look like ads for the company Fortitech. In the case of this article the link to fortitech has already been removed, but I still think the rest of the article sound like an ad, saying how difficult premixes are to make. Thue | talk 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this because, apart from the nominator, all those who voted are relatively new accounts. Another five days discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the link in an attempt to un-commercialize it, but the overall content is still lacking. I'll go with the Delete. --Several Times 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep. I would prefer a revise-and-expand since there is a flourishing industry of premade crud. Not my area of expertise, though. Eldereft 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep Informational tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CompanyProfiler2002 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 August 2005
• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Naysmyth

The person and his band do appear to exist, but - judging from Google results - no notability is established. The band does not appear to be the Manic Street Preachers that have an article of their own. Sandstein 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

He is the live keyboard player for the Manic Street Preachers, and has additionally been on television with them, in documentaries. He is also listed in the credits of three of their albums.

He has a cult status with fans of the band.

His name is sometimes spelt Nick Naysmith, but it is believed that it is Naysmyth.

Hence, my vote is to keep the page - Michael Anazapela

• Michael, if this is so and Naysmyth has little notability on his own, consider merging the info into the main Manic Street Preachers article or enhancing the Naysmyth article (cf. the tag I've added). To make what you say verifiable, consider linking to the relevant sources in the Naysmyth article. Best regards, Sandstein 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Links for album credits? C'mon... He's certainly in the band. Don't have much to say on the notability front, though I found this (not-profesional) review amusing: "The problem with the latter-day Manics is the addition of keyboardist Nick Naysmyth. Words cannot describe how utterly crap he is. He uses all of one finger in the aforementioned song." --zippedmartin 00:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if no notability can be established before the vfd ends. --Raistlin 13:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• He's basically a session musician that plays live keyboards for Manics live sets. And it's spelt Naysmith. If there isn't a line about him in the MSP article, put one in, but delete this as nn. Proto t c 10:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon gall

Seems just a shameless plug in the form of a CV... not encyclopedic Raistlin 13:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Indeed, what a bunch of (self?-)advertising. --IByte 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Gah. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• The gall. Delete, WP:N, WP:V—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:17:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Delete sickly. -Splash 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ack! --GraemeL 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vile self promotion. Secretlondon 05:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4

While I agree that it is likely that this game will come out someday, absolutely nothing is actually known about it. Every single item in the article is utter speculation. Details about the game are expected to be announced next month at a trade show, so I'd say delete this and recreate it after it's actually announced. (Am I being too type-A here? I'm seriously interested in knowing the consensus). Nandesuka 13:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seeing as it will be announced next month, and it has allready been "announced" in Shonen Jump. I don't see why it should be deleted only to be created again in a month. Havok (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although WP:NOT a crystal ball, the precedent for articles about games that are in production is there. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speed keep. It was announced in the last Shonen Jump in Japan. --Zeno McDohl 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I believe it was also in Famitsu. --Zeno McDohl 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59
• will be announced next month? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- delete. --Calton | Talk 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

What? It was already announced. --Zeno McDohl 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If it's been in Jump, it's announced. Shingen 19:23, 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. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ammar ibn Yasir's contribution to the battle of Badr

Non-notable topic. Dr Gangrene 14:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The Battle of Badr is non notable? Take a look and you will see that all participants in the battle have a similar page. The page need to be expanded, not deleted. -striver

• I never said the Battle of Badir is non notable. I said that this particular topic, i.e. this man's contribution to the battle, is not notable on its own. If anywhere, it belongs on Ammar ibn Yasir. As to the pages similar to this one, I have already noticed them and I am nominating them for deletion as well. Dr Gangrene 14:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — If we had this level of tactical detail about every significant battle in history we'd need a building full of hard drives. It's covered sufficiently by Battle of Badr. — RJH 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
• Merge or move. Content is notable, but not enough to have its own separate page. Merge to Battle of Badr or move/merge to Ammar ibn Yasir. — Nowhither 22:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As Calton said, "perhaps someone should have a word with him (i.e., me)". But, no, go ahead and delete it it. We don't understand it and we are too lazy to ask the author so lets just get rid of it! What sort of irresponsible attitude is this to a large project that is currently being worked on? If one of you had taken a look at my user page and my talk page you would have seen that progress is being made on a daily basis. I am currently pipelinking the articles into a new category. As for the individual who whinged about "redlink stuff", why not wait a day or two to see if it turns blue like everything else in the list? I wonder I bother? --Jack 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)