Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 23

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP Multicast Media Impact

Bizarre, non-encyclopedic rant. Kurt Shaped Box 00:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio? Secretlondon 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm a fan of IP multicast tech, but this article is way too POV. Also noticed that IP Multicast is in copyvio. PlainSight 02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have suggested wiki for netusergroups to intial editor. Alf 02:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete*; vio | Celcius 02:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation or original research. Nothing useful here. Possible copyvio too. Dmeranda 03:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic --Camw 05:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia ≠ a soapbox. the wub "?/!" 07:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with Dmeranda. This stinks of a cut-n-paste job. --Agamemnon2 09:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-This isn't utter nonsense, but it's not an encyclopedia entry either. "ka-ching!" --Tysto 14:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete this IP POV. --Several Times 14:31, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscientific metrology

Finish a VfD submission from Rktect. No vote, see below for thoughts on the article. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an excellent example of failure to even attempt NPOV. The article title displays a definite POV, and the body displays a different POV. If it were entirely up to me, I would rename the article to something like Historical Metrology, and set out both sides of the debate, being careful to maintain a balance between the sides.

For those just tuning in, the debate is, basically, whether all current systems of weights and measures can be traced directly back to a set of African or Middle Eastern measurements of antiquity. Part of this is whether the source society knew enough about geometry to base their measurements on something as arcane as a degree, one 360th part of a circle. There are reasoned arguments on both sides. Side questions include accuracy of the ancient measurements, which ancient society was the theoretical donor, and a bunch of things I'm leaving out intentionally.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This page Pseudoscientific metrology is full of original research, ie; it consists entirely of opinion and speculation, and is full of phrases like ("seems to have been"). What it has for cites or references do not support that any of its allegations are true.

The article is a polemic against the anti metric movement which is attacked at least three times in the course of a page because it "spurred further activity".

It doesn't say what the activity was, but then goes off on a tangent to allege "many different" unspecified "theories" have a "common theme" and attempts to associate the anti metric movement with the French Acadamie of Sciences, Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche, August Oxé, Livo C. Stecchini, John F. Neal, Alexander Thom and his ideas about a Megalithic yard.

Additionally this article engages in several other unsubstantiated attacks which have no basis in fact and taken as a whole is essentially patent nonsense. Rktect 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Woah, woah, woah, are we looking at the same article here? What I see is strongly sourced and very well written. I don't see any real OR problems here; certaintly this seems like an excellent article. Sdedeo 02:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally wrote this, and I will thus not cast a vote. I can easily see much room for improvment in POV bias in the wording. It is also a problem, like for other areas of pseudoscience, that the ideas of Stecchini et al has largely been ignored by the scientific community. But the real issue is how Wikipedia should treat claims like:

• The ancient units of measure of Mesopotamia and Egypt (dating from several thousand years BC) are directly defined by the circumference of the Earth.
• All ancient systems of measurement were built on each other, and exact definitions existed that related them
• There exists a Megalithic Yard. It can be directly linked to the Mesopotamian measures

Etc. I guess if this is to be accepted and described as bona fide science then Wikipedia is not what I though it was. -- Egil 03:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Is the Megalithic Yard truly pseudoscience? Or is it just controversial? The article makes it seem "weakly controversial". In physics there is a pretty clear delineation between controversial and pseudoscience, and the wiki articles reflects that in phrases like "widely considered psuedoscience" or "considered controversial" etc. etc. You might want to retitle the article here however. Sdedeo 03:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to something less obviously slanted. There is extensive precedent in WP to document widespread, well-known crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets get the terms straight. Cranks are people who write pages like that, full of opinion and speculation but notably short on real scientific knowledge, references, cites and even specific objections.Rktect 06:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per Ken and Wile E. Heresiarch --Apyule 05:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to BJAODN. freestylefrappe 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename & Rewrite The concept itself seems noteable enough Fornadan (t) 09:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Renane & Rewrite. The concept is noteworthy, but the presentation could be better. --Agamemnon2 09:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rename. Needs some work, but seems to a good start. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and merge with metrology as historical context. This material also needs citations; it's not biased if it cites good authority as to why these theories are wrong. --Tysto 14:23, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it 'doesn't' cite good authority as to why these theories are wrong. It speculates, opines and expects you to agree that well obviously they must be wrong without any proof. That is what makes a thing pseudo science in the first place.Rktect 16:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, probably rename, rewrite to NPOV. Interesting and valid topic. Rename to what? I don't like "historical metrology," that's too nonspecific and neutral, i.e. there could be and I expect there is a valid "historical metrology" but this isn't it. This would seem to be closely related to Pyramidology. More so than to metrology, I'd say, but of course that's my own POV showing. Maybe the title could reflect this somehow. (Actually our articles on Pyramidology and Pyramid power seem to be very thin, don't they?) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • How could you rewrite this to NPOV without deleting everything it says? As an architect I consider measuring, weighing and judging based on the evidence to be the very essence of science

so labeling what people have learned about measurement "pseudoscience" or "pyramidology" seems pretty weird.Rktect

• Keep Dottore So 16:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The article seems chronologically organized and - imply a causal relationship between the described different "metrologies", with a supposed revival or rediscovery by Mr. Heath. culminating in connecting everything to the Megalithic Yard.

Google [1] [2] [3] seems to indicate that proponents of this "science" don't call themselves metrologist, so metrology should be dropped from the name. pseudoscientific is sort-of POV and should be dropped. therefore:

• Remove all unnecesary info and put historical info where it belongs. for instance put The circumference of the Earth under Spherical Earth if found accurate.
• Rewrite extensively
• Merge with Megalithic Yard

especially the introduction is lacking. -- Zanaq 19:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I beg to differ on two accounts:

• Over-use of terms like metrologist and geometer are typical indicators of bs.
• The Megalithic-Yard-believers are just one fraction. There are many others. What about this beauty? So I think merging with MY is not good. I would also hate seeing this stuff merged with metrology. Also, historic meterology is plain misleading. This is pseudoscience, but a more NPOV term can be found, like alternative. I'd rather call a spade a spade, however.

-- Egil 20:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly rename. It is useful to synthesize the various more-or-less heterodox theories positing hidden uniformities in ancient measures. The article could of course use more work, but every article can. I am not sure what a good title would be, though. --Macrakis 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Call a spade a spade. Calling pseudoscience what it is not POV ladened, it's simply being honest. Changing it to Historical or Alternative is misleading. This stuff is what it is: pseudoscience. If we are renaming it, let's at least keep it honest and not wishy-washy.
  • As Egil says, the megalithic yard is just part of the story so we can't move it there. We could, of course, move MY here but I don't think this is a good idea. There is enough content in MY to warrant a seperate article.
  • It is little surprise at all that the nomination for deletion comes from our friend Rktect. Please take no offence, Rktect, I mean no personal attack. I'm sure you fully believe in what you're claiming and think what you're doing is the right thing.
  • For those unfamiliar with what's going on: Rktect has been avidly working on many measurement articles. His contributions generally promote this one-and-the-same-system-throughout-history theory. Before slapping the VfD tag on this article he rewrote it. Have a look at his version of the article. Jimp 24Aug05
    • "Pseudoscientific metrology

Inspired by some of the last few weeks incidents, I've collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I've also posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC) A pseudoscientific attack: that's exactly what seems to be happening here. I'll have a look at your page. Splitting Ancient weights and measures article was a good idea. I'd been thinking of doing that myself. Jimp 8Aug05 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimp" copied into the record by Rktect 16:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Thanks Rktect. I'm sure this will be very useful. Jimp 28Aug05

• • • WOW that makes a lot of difference. I'm all for reverting.

Zanaq 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Not necessarily under the same name. There appears to be at least some content worth salvaging. --Mysidia (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Valid topic; it may not be over-endowed with NPOV at present but many of these lost wisdom of the ancients efforts are nonsense, we just need some references added to validate the claims made. adamsan 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Danged good documentation of silliness. ~~ N (t/c) 13:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rktect version reinforces how good it really is. Gene Nygaard 13:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of you seem to be saying that

• yes it has a POV which is anything but scientific,
• yes its mostly unrefrenced speculation and opinion,
• yes its a polemic,
• yes its facts are wrong,
• but what the heck, who cares if this whole page is patent nonsense
• as long as it calls lots of other stuff nonsense too,
• Yes let's keep it.
• This page speculates and loudly voices it opinion that there is a connection between Pseudoscience and Metrology but it certainly doesn't go about proving that according to any scientific method I am aware of Rktect 03:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, is the previous from the last point an indication that you changed your vote? -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most of you seem to be saying that" but I have to admit I'm fascinated by the idea that renaming it to something NPOV Like "Facts I didn't Know" and removing the POV content from the page would not leave a single full sentence in that article. All that page evidences right now is how little its author actually knows about the scientific method.Rktect 06:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it, Rename it, Add introduction indicating that the stuff is controversial.
  And, what about creating a Category for Controversial matter ?
  Magnus, 28 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 no consensus, so keep. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slender Means

This band doesn't seem to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC (their first album is released tomorrow, apparently, by a record label that doesn't appear to have an article in Wikipedia). I don't know enough about the indie rock scene to know if the article is worth keeping or if this is vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity/promo, wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: 4,000 google hits, numerous reviews, disc available on Amazon. They fit WP:MUSIC by being notable in their field (indie rock). This one just needs to be expanded. JDoorjam 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. These guys appear to be building a reputation ie Allmusic.com article albeit a rudimentary one and some local seattle coverage. I don't know that WP:Music criteria have been met although they may well be soon. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the time being. --Agamemnon2 09:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And what, delete them when they're no longer not famous? --Tysto 15:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

• Delete and welcome them back when they're rich and famous and can afford a PR guy to write a decent entry. --Tysto 15:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Simply being in the "indie" category does not meet the criteria in any way I can see. Friday (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dottore So 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep right side of the line! Trollderella 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I see no evidence of meeting any of WP:MUSIC. There's a chance they could be big in indie, but there's no evidence that they are, and they don't appear to be overwhelmingly important locally either. One album is insufficient in any case. -Splash 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Not notable yet. Come back later. --Etacar11 03:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please becausde of what roadster says Yuckfoo 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me. Plus I always listen to the capitalistroadster... The Steve  06:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Reinyday, 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gachake

Not notable Secretlondon 01:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN PlainSight 01:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Alf 02:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Cnwb 08:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN --Agamemnon2 09:27, 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 delete. Rje 02:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Vansant

Hosting a university radio show isn't a big deal, I've had a show in the past. As for podcasts, anybody can do that if they so wish. Non-notable, probable vanity Rje 01:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Miscreated a user page the first time, and went to edit the user page and was saving as an actual page. Please delete and accept my mixup apologies Charlievansant 10:07, August 22, 2005 (EST)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korn unleashed

• I was originally going to speedy this, but the user's claims made me decide on a vanity. If it was a registered user, i'd ask them to NPOV it before deleting, but it was made by an anon. Alexa has this site at 198,408, so I am doubtful of their claims. Karmafist 02:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is totally vanity. -- MicahMN | μ 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Only Crunk and Durty South no rock Delete -CrunkGurl88 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Agamemnon2 09:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteas vanity. Dottore So 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. AngryParsley 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, if possible. Poorly written advert. —kooo 16:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• This should probably be merged with Korn, albeit probably as nothing more than an "external link" listing. Kelly Martin 21:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everybody else D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:54, 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 already speedy deleted. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christronic.com

Non-notable website; only online since August 2005. Madchester 02:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, since the creator of the article has now blanked it out, I'll vote to Delete. *Dan* 02:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clandestine music

As my father would say, "pure d. (for 'damn') nonsense." Delete. FuriousFreddy 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Google search [4] returns 227 hits, none of which seem to relate to the described subject. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm...most of these hits seem to be for the music of a band called Clandestine. Perhaps we should redirect?--FuriousFreddy 03:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Negative Ghost Rider. If the CIA puts out an album then we'll need this wikispace. JDoorjam
• Delete. Work of a bored teenager. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JDoorjam 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Agamemnon2 09:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original Research criteria also applies. --WCFrancis 14:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete How clandestine can they be if the author has heard of them? I suspect a good article could be written about anti-Castro music, Haitian protest Reggae, and similar music that is clandestine, but this isn't it. On this one, I'm tempted to vote keep and redirect to Bands that are not famous. --Tysto 15:16, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete this. There is an article yet to be written about truly clandestine music. I have a CD of Mafia-related folksongs from Italy; then there is white supremacist music, or revolutionary music under political censorship. But the Supremes? Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Wernham

Google gives 2 results for this under-18s rugby player. Possible vanity Cnwb 02:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN: Why? Because he loves ham... Karmafist 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nn bio. JDoorjam 03:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The dude loves ham. Ha! I kill me. Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete even with the ham thing. --Apyule 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under A7. While the article claims he is one of the country's greatest rugby players, no evidence is presented for this claim. Indeed, he doesn't even specify which country he is from. Certainly, as a keen rugby follower I have never heard of him. Capitalistroadster 06:30, 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 delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelDog

Not notable, ad. --fvw* 03:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utter screed. --Agamemnon2 09:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Badvertisment. Alf 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. -- DS1953 13:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. --*drew 22:49, 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.

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 speedied under the new CSD. --fvw* 03:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avnish

Non-notable. Also, it looks like the page has been vandalized. Cheese Sandwich 03:27, 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 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Bailey

Vanity, no evidence of notability. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC) PS. Please direct comments longer than 25 words to the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Kevin Bailey. Thanks in advance.

• Article does not establish notability. Userfy to User:Kevinb3. Sietse 19:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless Kevinb3 wishes to use it as his user page in which case Userfy as per Sietse. Subject is IMO at the edge of notability, notable enough that there are two articles, one actual (International Typeface Corporation) and one potential (Type Directors Club), that if expanded far enough, he would merit a brief mention in. Caerwine 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (changed from reserved) based on the current contents this entry is acceptable. I have given a heads up to Kevinb3, to look here, I also think it's likely to be 'Userfy' issue. Alf 09:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment This is not an article, it's a stub attached to lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_designers The list also includes links to various other lists all the way down the food chain to lists of fonts not created in major foundries; i.e. freeware type designers who are listed alphabetically. I intend to be somewhat of a watchdog in this realm of the database and can see where improvements and better organization can improve the integrity within this category. Respectfully, It would be my hope that those that are not trained in this particular discipline can abstain from being too critical. You can trust that the community for which this information serves will be deliberate and expedient in maintaining the quality of the data as typophiles become increasingly aware of this expanding database. From the bylaws of Wikipedia: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion."Kevinb3 14:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and see the related [entry] and vote for deletion over there as well. Entirely non-notable. Ok, I'll cancel my delete vote for this given the change in bio material. Dottore So 16:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn in the A7 sense — if the user wants it userfied, they should let someone know. -Splash 22:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 03:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll second Splash's weak keep. --Etacar11 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment There's a British poet called Kevin Bailey who I've now knocked up a stub for. Thoughts? Hiding talk 21:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a little weakly. Has 3 published anthologies (or somethings), and, although none of them ranks especially highly on Amazon, having more than a couple, being a judge for a comp and founding a magzine probably add up to about make it. -Splash 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Permised

Admitted neologism. Pity it's not a speedy. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delese. Gazpacho 03:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like some guy just did a gaff on a website and decided to make an article on his misspelling. Delete. --Apostrophe 03:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted neologism and non-notability. Dmeranda 03:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the equivalent of bathroom-wall-scribbles. --Agamemnon2 09:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Dmeranda. Alf 09:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete - Er, why is this not a speedy? --Tysto 15:19, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Because, Tysto, it meets none of the requirements for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Yes, I know that sucks. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:37, 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 no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nero (band)

Vanity page. Hurricane111 04:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep This needs to be cleaned up more than just deleted, the abnd has had some exposure and google hits reveal that. If it was a vanity page, instead of some fan it would have atleast included a link to their page. Lullabye Muse 04:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any Google hits for this particular group at all, not even a web page for them. Note that they are neither the Nero found at neroband.com nor the one at neroland.com. Per the article, their touring has been limited to a relatively small region, and they have only made one album, which was self-released. Therefore, it is doubtful that they qualify under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Metropoitan90. The current "Nero (band)" article doesn't pass the WP:MUSIC test. However, if the article was about the band from the neroland.com external link then I say weak keep. The reason why the neroland.com band barely passes is they have a minor allmusic.com entry [5] however they're still a minor indie band judging by their entry. --J. Nguyen 06:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Reserved. I have greeted the intial editor (new user) and pointed them here. Alf 10:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Dottore So 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnandity, which would seem to fail each point in WP:MUSIC. -Splash 22:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now see WP:MUSIC #2 - this band has been on an international tour, which is sufficient to qualify for an entry according to the guidelines. let the article develop. --User:Dschor 04:33, 26 August, 2005
• Keep. -- Reinyday, 08:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up article some. Alf 23:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footsnam

Seemingly a colloquial term for Footscray, which the author can't even spell correctly, which has a sizable Vietnamese community Cnwb 04:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Total crap. --Apyule 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• nb. I've been looking through the contributions of 210.11.188.30 and all s/he has done is vandalise. Cnwb 05:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "It is filled with people." Gee, thanks for that snippet of erudite wisdom. --Agamemnon2 09:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete a random sample proves Cnwb correct, oh and its tosh. Alf 10:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Dottore So 16:55, 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 Delete. -- RHaworth 07:57:32, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

[edit] Scarface references in south park

Scarface references in south park are non-notable. freestylefrappe 04:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft. Martg76 04:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree fancruft. --J. Nguyen 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inane rambling from fans of an inane show. --Agamemnon2 09:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deletee. as per nom. Alf 10:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... but I respect its authoritah. --Tysto 15:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete Say allo to my leetle Fren'!!TheDeletator 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Sheesh. — RJH 16:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dottore So 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mah leetle frein' say so. - Lucky 6.9 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. Fancruft. Optichan 22:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This user needs to be watched -- he's posting a lot of junk like this. Paul Klenk 08:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to South Park Roodog2k 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. The material has already been added verbatim to the target, and this was not a nomination for deletion anyway. -Splash 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amorbis

I don't see a need for a whole article on this boss. It could probably be contained in the Metroid Prime 2: Echoes article. Thunderbrand 04:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. Thunderbrand 04:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Thunderbrand Amren ^(talk) 04:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Thunderbrand. Alf 10:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as suggested. --Wwwwolf 11:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This suggested merge and the one below it should not be taking up space on VfD. Go ahead and do the merges yourself. If you feel that the merge you have in mind will be contentious, then RfC it first or discuss it with specific users who you feel would object. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:02, 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 REDIRECT Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. The material has already been added verbatim to the target, and this was not a nomination for deletion anyway. -Splash 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadraxis

Like the Amorbis article, this could just be contained in the Metroid Prime 2: Echoes article. Thunderbrand 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. Thunderbrand 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Thunderbrand. freestylefrappe 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Thunderbrand. Alf 10:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as suggested. --Wwwwolf 11:42, 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 speedy delete as per WP:CSD clause A7. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Roque

Vanity page. No entry in google search. Hurricane111 04:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --fvw* 04:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Agamemnon2 09:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User Likerosesare might like to userfy it if he wishes, but not in the mainspace. Alf 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• A7 Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability, vanity. Proto t c 12:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this rubbish. Dottore So 17:01, 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.

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. -- RHaworth 06:10:30, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew lawson

• Delete. Non-notable vanity page. —Charles O'Rourke 04:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable vanity page. --Hurricane111 04:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Textbook example of CSD A7. I've marked it as such, no need for this one to wait around for five days. android79 05:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chustle

Dictdef, neologism. --fvw* 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per fvw DES ^(talk) 06:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even this ref to dance music wouldn't be right here. I'll advise editor on wiktionary. Alf 11:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:38, 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 no consensus, so kept. I've added a {{merge}} tag to the article as most of the non-delete votes suggested a merge and/or redirect. JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Knight (principal)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable school principal. We have to let every school in the world in, do we have to allow their faculty? The last paragraph is an attack, anyway, and it was initially created by the original author, so it isn't vandalism of the article. Zoe 04:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, attack page. android79 05:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nateji77 07:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Agamemnon2 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What changes need to be made to remove the article from the deletion list? I created it, and just removed the aforemented material - which while being quite accurate - is deemed inappropriate by others. The article should stay. For some, places and people they don't know about are not relevant, but for those that know of them - are quite relevant. - G 10:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• You just have to wait for the process to end in 5 days, then for an administrator to close the debate. I find my dinner lady quite relevant, but she's done nothing that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. The whole point is that we can't have an article on every person on earth. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Alf says take a deep breath folks...Merge with what isn't already on Glenunga International High School, G, would you happen to have a connection with the school, the article could stand more work, when was it built, what's the architecture like?. Alf 11:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge whatever useful as per Alf.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge (making it doubly clear so my vote isn't discounted by any closer trying to be disruptive). Ambi 13:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 13:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Glenunga International High School --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 17:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Already documented in the Glenunga International High School article as a school principal. Hall Monitor 19:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redirect if you really must have it. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, any relevant info already in school article, which as suggested above could do with some expansion--AYArktos 21:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to the school article doesnt policy dictate we should do that Yuckfoo 06:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What policy? If you're referring to GFDL concerns with a merge/redirect, no merge was performed – dissimilar text was independently added to Robert Knight (principal) and Glenunga International High School, and as such, no redirect is required. android79 13:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Glenunga International High School There can only be one Robert Knight Anyway. :) Roodog2k 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, copyright violation (or if copyright is given it's spam). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECommerce Best Practices

Ad. --fvw* 05:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio deal with as such. (If relesed under GFDL, delte as spam.) DES ^(talk) 05:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Good catch, must have forgotten to google it. --fvw* 05:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax or otherwise unverifiable. Marriage not covered by any online news sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Serena Bullock

Zero Google hits for '"serena bullock" brunei'. Unlikely that a 16-year-old Western girl would marry the Crown Prince of Brunei, even less likely that it wouldn't make any ripples on the Internet. Zoe 05:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. --Apyule 05:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search for "Princess Serena" Brunei proved similarly useless see [6] Capitalistroadster 06:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Agamemnon2 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, If true, the marriage would have been covered by the media. Looks like Bullocks to me. That would explain her last name... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Apyule. Alf 11:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• If Verify true, Merge to Sultan of Brunei, Else Delete Doesn't the sultan have dozens of wives? IF this is true, merge it... Roodog2k 18:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was that the article was rewritten into a valid stub and kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor Tianzuodi of Liao

Nonsense or hugely lacking in context. Not worth keeping either way. --fvw* 05:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. --Apyule 05:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reserved pending changes by Nateji77. --Apyule 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep after changes. --Apyule 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep real person[7], bogus content. i'll write a stub about when i'm on a computer with cjk. Nateji77 07:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment very short stub finished. Nateji77 04:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if rewritten by user Nateji77. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Emperor Tianzuodi of Liao China as suggested on Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/Complete to do. Alf 11:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Current stub is good enough for me, Keep. --fvw* 17:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Creating a garbage article on an obscure but genuinely notable historical figure is a very subtle form of vandalism; I'm impressed that the article's been salvaged. Keep. DS 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep if you see an article that needs improvement, improve it! Trollderella 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at Tianzuodi of Liao following convention for monarchs. Gazpacho 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Brigade

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 05:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 05:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge It should be merged with the Dresden Dolls article Lyo 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Lyo, no harm in that. Alf 11:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing here worth merging. Dottore So 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dottoreso. -- Kjkolb 12:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Lyo and Alf. Bastardman 17:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above Roodog2k 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furfire

Non-notable webcomic. --fvw* 05:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable enough. freestylefrappe 05:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well known comic both locally and overseas --Composingliger 07:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Alexa ranking of 1.5 million is not promising, but Google seems to show an extensive cult following. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Granted, the comic is currently on hiatus, which probably contributes to the low Alexa rating, but it has a large fanbase. Poofyspikes 15:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the consideration of the voting public: Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A few passionate fans does not make this encyclopedia-worthy. Dottore So 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting. Trollderella 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the Alexa ranking is extremely low. The Google hits are also very small for a webcomic, at only 4000ish at raw count: however, only 140 of them are unique, which is unsurprising — it reveals the small fan base. -Splash 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I've heard of it, but so what? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. n-fucking-n. -HX
• Delete per Splash. Dragonfiend 01:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aloe Programming Language

Scripting language of which the first version was published a fortnight ago. Not notable. --fvw* 05:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Agamemnon2 09:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Barno 18:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep. programming langauges are inherently notable. Voyager640 20:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN, Primary (original) research Roodog2k 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ihyd

Non-notable neologism. --fvw* 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per fvw. DES ^(talk) 06:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 09:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Borderline nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as in It'll Have You Deleted. Alf 12:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't Urbandictionary.com (btw, that was a funny one Alf)--Isotope23 18:45, 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. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Luck

No sources or google hits for any of the relevant terms, probable hoax. --fvw* 05:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: He is the leader of a registered political party, so says Elections BC. He did not run as a candidate in any election (as far as I know), as such I remain neutral but interested in the outcome. -maclean25 06:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 99 Google hits for the party, most of which point to the party site which only displays a message saying that the site is not available. Searching on "Tony Luck" has around 9k hits, but non of the first few pages seem relevant. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already mentioned on the Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia, which is pretty brief. I would paste the end of the sentence there but for slight diff. of naming I'm unsure of. Alf 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia, since there's no further material here to be merged. Not a candidate, no indication so far that his party leadership has led to mainstream media coverage beyond "minor party's head said what party heads always say." Barno 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Tony Luck is a registered political party leader in British Columbia, and Wikipedia precedent allows party leaders to have separate bio pages (even in the case of small parties). CJCurrie 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This would set a bad precedent, in most jurisdictions in Canada takes a lot of effort to get and keep a political party registered in law. --Cloveious 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CJCurrie and Cloveious. I have wikified the article. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, it may be a small, weak article at this point but the precedent is party leaders are article worthy. - Jord 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Boragina

Non-notable nobody who hasn't even won an election. Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I should also add that this is a vanity article, and violates the spirit of the policy on autobiographies. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont care. delete it if you want. Pellaken 06:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per page creator. --Alan Au 07:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy for user Pellaken or else delete as unsuccessful candidate who does not appear to be otherwise notable. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pellaken, the page creator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per page creator but suggest Pellaken having same/similar on his user page. Alf 12:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--losing candidate for provincial legislature. Meelar (talk) 14:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I seem to recall that Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing articles about themselves, no matter how notable they may or may not be. On the other hand, current precedent is that anybody who's run as a candidate in any election can be included in a collated "list of X Party's candidates in Foo election" article. (I can't say I like it, but it is the currently-established practice.) Either userfy or, if somebody's feeling really ambitious, merge into a List of New Democratic Party candidates in the Prince Edward Island election, 2003. Bearcat 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I just dont care. I could fight this, but I dont have the energy right now. Pellaken 12:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Cheng

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable editor, vanity. Zoe 05:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bye bye.. I thought this was speedied? --Madchester 05:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Save Gordon — (Unsigned comment by 202.92.89.133; user's 9th edit.)
• Keep Gordon stays! — (Unsigned comment by 143.238.94.24; user's 1st edit.)
• Delete. Gordon goes! --Agamemnon2 09:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, Usrnme h8er 11:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Tagged for speedy delete as nn-bio by Spearhead. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all publishers have numerous editors under contract and it would be foolish to list them all unless they've done something worthy of general attention to the world. Notability not established. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, probable vanity. android79 16:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline speedy, but Zoe rightfully did not pull the trigger on it as being the author of a "popular" series of books is a claim to notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and possibly vanity.--Isotope23 18:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN & vanity. --*drew 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gordon is well known within Sydney Anglican circles. There are people less-well known on this encyclopedia than him, I don't see why he should be deleted. But if it must be, so be it.--JROBBO 20:09 25 August 2005 (AEST) — (JROBBO's 7th edit.)
• Keep. Gordon exercises significant influence in the Australian Evangelical Christian scene. He is closely associated with the influential Philip Jensen — (Kairon's 28th edit.)
• Keep. Article has been cleaned up to establish notability and remove vanity elements — (Duplicate vote by Kairon.)
• keep. Person of influence within sydney evangelicalism, notable for his publications and opinion setting.--203.87.74.218 11:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bye bye... Kontrovert 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vectorama

Non-notable, apparent vanity of a local LAN-party. Boxclocke 05:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CRUNK IT UP -CrunkGurl88 07:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn netusergroup. Alf 12:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Several Times 14:38, 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 Merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica (Stargate)

Please do not vote merge and delete, those actions are incompatible. Merging requires the hsitory of an article to be retained (in for example a redirection). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article and merge content with the Stargate articles. This topic isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Charles O'Rourke 06:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User Staxringold had orginally added this material to the Antarctica article; first on it's own; then created a "Pop Culture References" section just to throw in a lenthy StarGate plug. --Madchester 06:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever I'm merely trying to get this piece of content put somewhere appropriate. I apologize if I've fouled this up, I am new to actually adding wiki content. Put this wherever you think is appropriate, I just don't see where it would go for the regular Stargate sections. --staxringold

Comment. You should discuss some of your proposed articles beforehand on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate page, to get a better feel of whether they're actually notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Madchester 06:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Could I just get a suggestion where to put it finally, then go ahead with the deletion? I think the content is worth posting, I just need direction with precisely where to put it.

I'm not familiar with the current Stargate project or the peeps working on it, but just feel free to drop a message on that talk page, and I'm sure that that the regulars there will decide whether the article is worthy for inclusion. There may be someone already working on a similar article for all I know. They already have some timeline for articles to be created, so just chat it up with them first. --Madchester 06:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Stargate SG-1.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into the primary Stargate article.Gateman1997 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the two episodes where they do a lot in Antarctica - the where they get trapped there and the one where they fight there. Put everything in between in the first with a special spoiler saying "OMG SPOILERS FOR EPISODES AFTER THIS ONE". --SPUI (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge notable info with Stargate SG-1 and DELETE this page with all history and all. Or did I miss a crucial point here? Or should I vote Merge & Do Not Redirect. Anyway - the point is that a redirect with this title would be pointless. Maybe I should present my case at Wikipedia:Deletion reform. -- Zanaq 19:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge I think I understand a little bit better now. I agree this needs merging with the main SG page as opposed to it's own article. (staxringold)
• Merge into main Stargate article. --Etacar11 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, do not redirect. -- Naive cynic 08:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per above Roodog2k 18:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circular_Album

This really seems to be a neologism, as a google test for "circular album" returns very few results, all of which are in the context of describing an album, and not as a widespread or notable concept. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Static3d 06:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all but the name with Music loop as it could add interest there as a distinct section. Alf 12:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I like the article, and can think of a few more albums to list. If it must be moved, It would probably fit better under Song cycle, as it already has a mention of the circular album. Dr Ellipso 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The only link to the Circular_Album page on Wikipedia is, in fact, on the Song cycle page. However, the original author of the Circular Album page placed it there, and it was a simple replacement of the words "song cycle" in the final paragraph and rendered nearly all text after the link incorrect. To be specific, the paragraph talks about song cycles in popular music, then the inserted text reads "Other circular albums in popular music include: ..." It suddenly jumps to an unrelated (an incorrect) concept. Albums like this really do exist, and info about them could be added to the song cycle page, possibly by saying something like "certain albums take the concept of a song cycle even further, by allowing seamless looping of the entire album." Obviously, the term "circular album" shouldn't appear anywhere. Static3d 02:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Unless this is already a named concept in music, which it doesn't appear to be, then naming it and categorizing albums as "circular" albums is original research. android79 16:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Flowerparty ^talk 19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: the only available evidence is that this is a neologism as the nominator suggests. -Splash 22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: As creator of the article, I feel I should have a say. I created it with the best intentions, linked a few albums I considered circular, and hoped other users would link other albums, as well as linking this article in the album's article. I never got around to it, and I was intimidated by adding unnessesary edits to constantly watched articles like The Wall. However, I do think it's worth noting and recording the names of albums where the beginning and endings "match up" so to speak, wheather in the album's article or in it's own article. I reluctantly approve of merging this article with music loop or song cycle, to preserve the information written. --Insomniak 18:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Codes of silence

• Delete. Non-notable band. Returns no relevant hits on Google. —Charles O'Rourke 06:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Cnwb 08:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 12:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• D Klonimus 09:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Giddenson

Appears to be patent nonsense associated with Grande Trilogie of Epick Workes - no google hits, first article by editor. - Bantman 06:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. I'm tempted just to tag it as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN as a first article, it's utterly fanciful nonsense and hope to see equally well constructed real articles from the editor in future, meanwhile I've reverted 1315 and 1280. Alf 12:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment This particular article was created by User:Hamonicamusings and subsequently edited by User:205.197.148.2, I have encouraged 'them' to comment here. Alf 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This article is a careful hoax. The author (205.197.148.2) should be blocked as the worst kind of vandal: a non-obvious one. --Tysto 15:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

yeah, this is hamonicamusings. I agree with Alf's suggestion, and put it up on the BJAODN. Even though it's a hoax, it was a pretty well thought out one...you have to give me that, at least. I am thinking though that it could use some historical references. No matter. I also thing that Tysto needs to lighten up a bit. But yeah, delete it or Move it to BJAODN. Probably the best place for it anyway. Hamonicamusings 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tysto; this is an example of the insidious vandalism that poses the greatest threat to WP. It was undetected for about 12 hours, and even touched up by other editors; I only caught it because I was watching 1280 and sensed that the article didn't look right. It could have stayed up for a long time without detection as a glaring example of WP's shortcomings. - Bantman 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 03:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Awesome hoax. Wish it was true. -HX

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grande Trilogie of Epick Workes

Appears to be patent nonsense related to Bruce Giddenson - no google hits, first articles by contributor. - Bantman 06:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alan Au 07:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 09:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not as classy as the above biography. Alf 12:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a careful hoax. The author (205.197.148.2) should be blocked as the worst kind of vandal: a non-obvious one. --Tysto 15:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Comment I have encouraged User:Hamonicamusings and User:205.197.148.2 to comment here. Alf 19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 03:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fur Foot

This article is such nonsense I gotta pay out the wazoo sending this VFD in all the way from Panama City, Panama. This article is useless on its own, precedent set for deletion of all Toad Patrol character pages with the Slippery Jack deletion. [[8]]. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• CSD pn, uv and a lot of other two letter acronyms. --Apyule 07:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge or Keep if the toad patrol people think that their article is too long.--Apyule 12:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Toad Patrol. --Alan Au 07:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - I've gone ahead and flagged it as such as well... Merge with Toad Patrol. Usrnme h8er 08:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, major character in Toad Patrol. Kappa 11:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Toad Patrol. Nandesuka 12:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and any other Toad Patrol character stubs. Thatdog 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Trollderella 21:02, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michele Raven

((Extremely offensive reason for deletion deleted. I think the reason is "vanity." Kelly Martin 19:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC))) CrunkGurl88 07:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, since appears to be a bad faith VfD nomination. --Alan Au 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, much as I don't like the vfd, this is a nn page. Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination ref: [9] I'm happy to consider this notable. Usrnme h8er 07:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad faith indeed, but this person is still nn. (She does exist, so it's not hoax.) Marblespire 08:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep new here but I think this should be kept, according to IMDB she has been in 54 movies and directed two more, she also gets 20,000+ google hits, is apparently Elegant Angels #1 star known as "Slutwoman" (LOL) and if Im to understand recent VfD debate correctly almost all porn-star pages are being kept, at least ones that are 10x less notable that this woman are. -ShadowStaller 08:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Notable enough. Delete CrunkGurl88. Cyclone49 09:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Sheesh, the oddest VfD request ever. Delete the Nominator! --Agamemnon2 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The question is, can you CSD a VfD as nonsense? Usrnme h8er 11:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's certainly a bad faith nomination, but at least one other editor in good faith is of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So it's probably best to just ignore the nomination and discuss as normal, on the merits of the article subject at hand. Uncle G 11:22:05, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable porn star. Can we list the nomination under BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 11:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Capitalistroadster. Nomination should go to BJAODN if possible. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster --Apyule 13:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capalistroadster, with BJAODN for the nom. --Several Times 14:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Porn actors and directors are a dime a dozen. There is nothing notable about this person or of value in the article. Also, it is my understanding that the subject is a "hoodrat" who drives a "broke-down car." --Tysto 15:58, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Keep article. BJAODN VFD nomination. Delete CrunkGurl88. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 16:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Bobdoe to the letter :) --Raistlin 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Full disclosure: this article was written by User:Wiffle0rz, an editor that I'm actively trying to sheepdog right now. I suspect that he's a kid, and it would surprise me not one bit to know that the VfD nominator is also User:Wiffle0rz. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is clearly a nonsense nomination. Would prefer not to BJAODN this VfD. Hall Monitor 19:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seemingly notable star. CanadianCaesar 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - Who can forget her stellar performances in "Train My White Ass 6" and "Ultimate Strap-On Super Slam 9". We now return to our regular NPOV. -Awyllie 05:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable porn star. Roodog2k 18:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paula P-Orridge

New Age woo woo vanity page. Calton | Talk 07:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep new user here, saw this and had to vote. Shes a member of Throbbing Gristle which is one of the most influential and controversial bands of all time that has had a huge influence on punk, industrial and electronic music. Not too mention she is a member of Psychic TV which is rather notable for the fact that Ian Curtis of Joy Division was to be in it, all the other members have their own pages as well. Also, I dont see what exactly is New Age-y about it except the fact that she released an ambient record but not all ambient records are necessarily new age-y, hers in particular is rather dark. -ShadowStaller 08:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, btw, I want to say that I think the page should be edited because it seems to be written from one persons POV which should be changed but overall the page should be kept not deleted -ShadowStaller 08:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It definitely is in need of a POV check. Please be bold and render the article more neutral! Uncle G 11:49:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• Keep. Member of a notable band. Cnwb 08:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. For a member of "one of the most influential and controversial bands of all time", she sure is unheard-of. --Agamemnon2 09:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Following WP:MUSIC as a guideline, she satisfies #2: (she has gone on an international tour and tours of the UK with both Psychic TV and Throbbing Gristle and perfomed at All Tomorrow's Parties) #3: (Was a part of at least 20 albums with Throbbing Gristle and more with Pyschic TV, not too mention 17 live albums with Psychic TV) #4: (TG and Psychic TV have been featured in countless media esp. in Britain such as NME and Rolling Stone #5: (Ian Curtis of Joy Division was an original member of Psychic TV but he committed suicide before their first album) #6: (Throbbing Gristle pretty much invented or were one of the originators of Industrial music along with Cabaret Voltaire and had a massive influence on Post-Punk and electronica especially with the use of samples). She is also rather notable for her alleged connection to Satanic Ritual Abuse in England and the eventual clearing of any claims against her. Throbbing Gristle (the main reason shes listed as its a pretty influential band and all the members have their own pages) has 131,000 hits on Google, considering theyre not very famous thats quite a bit. -ShadowStaller 10:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And please be bold and add some citations of news coverage of the controversy that you mention to the article and flesh out its Discography section. See Kim Wilde and Charlotte Church (to pick two female artists at random) for pointers. Uncle G 11:49:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• Redirect to Throbbing Gristle. No need for her own page. Proto t c 10:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Although Throbbing Gristle is the band shes most notable for, she deserves her own page for her work in Psychic TV not too mention the fact that she has released her own solo albums -ShadowStaller 10:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• A huge thank you to ShadowStaller (talk · contribs) for providing a welcome relief from the arguments that we usually get from new users. That's well-reasoned, based upon our guidelines, detailed, and persuasive. Keep. Uncle G 11:49:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• I concur. Keep. Nandesuka 12:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ShadowStaller. Thatdog 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Thanks to ShadowStaller and welcome to Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 19:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep JZ 20:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trollderella 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per ShadowStaller. "New Age woo woo" indeed! Tonywalton  | Talk 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She's notable for solo work in addition to Throbbing Gristle Jessamyn 03:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician, but the article needs work. 23skidoo 05:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move. She was a partner in Psychic TV, involved in Throbbing Gristle, married to a major figure in experimental music, and has released her own material. The article needs to be fleshed out, however and should probably moved to Alaura O'Dell as that appears to be the name she has lived under outside of her marriage to Genesis P-Orridge and is working under. I believe some effort on both their part has gone into removing the name "Paula P-Orridge" from all re-releases. Glowimperial 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monir Georgi

A 25-year-old "internationally renowned Vocational Education Expert" who has, nevertheless, managed to mostly escape the notice of Google (8 unique hits, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors). Delete. Calton | Talk 07:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Being part of several groups and societies isn't really an achievement like the article says. But Egyptian/Mexican heritage makes me think google might not be the best way to search. What do non-mirrors report? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

An obituary archive from a local paper, nanny rates at Christmas, coptic Christianity, and a kickboxing club reference that 404s. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Unable to verify the claims to notability. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This appears to be a feeble attempt at self-promotion. (edit 12:25, 23 August 2005 by User:62.49.6.17)

• Delete as per nom.Alf 13:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salted mustard greens and shredded meat noodle soup

Wikipedia is Not a reciepie book... Delete Usrnme h8er 07:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete HAHAHAHAHAHA __earth 10:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• With a heavy heart I must say delete, sounds delicious though --LemonAndLime 10:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, please. That's what we've got the WikiBooks Cookbook for. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Hhhhhm, soup! Transwiki per Mgm. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Transwikification is not a valid option here, please choose another. The recipe was copied to the Wikibooks Cookbook in July. (The transwikification was improper. I've just fixed it.) An earlier version of this article actually linked directly to the Cookbook. Please read the edit history of this article. Uncle G 12:58:00, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • Okay, so put in a soft redir, or delete under CSD#A5 after this vfd completes. Radiant_>|< 15:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (and for the record of voting, delete) Radiant_>|< 08:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a recipe, but an article about the soup itself. "Many Chinese restaurants in the US serve this dish" is grounds for notability. Thatdog 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After a bit of research, I now have reason to doubt this claim. I can't find many references to this dish being served at restaurants, at least not under this name. Therefore I now vote delete. Thatdog 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If they do serve it, it's going to be on the Chinese menu in Chinese. Klonimus 09:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - sounds delicious! Trollderella 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How is that a reason for encyclopedicity? This is an encyclopedia, not a recipe book. To keep it, the article should discuss the history and cultural impact of salted mustard greens and shredded meat noodle soup. The moment you can produce an article that does that, I will vote keep. -Splash 22:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Optichan 22:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a cookbook, and this is barely a recipe. This is an article that can be used as part of an information-controlled diet. -Splash 22:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many restaurants that serve this dish in Los Angeles. Except, yes, it needs to be expanded or merged to Mandarin cuisine. ~sunbun 06:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elise Boyd

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Does not appear notable, more suitable for user space

• Oops, forgot to sign - Average Earthman 10:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe the Matmice website is more notable. It could be renamed and rewritten. Otherwise userfy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, I have greeted the intial editor and pointed them here. Alf 13:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep listed reason not valid. Trollderella 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable. Userfy. Optichan 22:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete/userfy it's obvious vanity (with personal picture). The matmice site might be more notable. But I don't think she merits her own article at this time. --Etacar11 04:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• I am Elise Boyd and I wish for this entry to be deleted (I did not post it). -- Elise Boyd 04:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. Gamaliel 05:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy/delete and welcome to wikipedia! Hope this doesn't put her off editing! The JPS 23:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kampong Festival

Looks like an advertisement. The poster seems to be trying to market the event. Moreover, the poster has limited edits and all edits are related to this event. __earth 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• delete __earth 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, I have greeted the initial editor and pointed them here, I would have no objections to them having same/similar on their own user page, if it's part of what they do/are. Alf 13:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have removed the speedy tag from the article. This is probably deletable, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:CSD. -- Visviva 05:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

baBlonde:I can understand that you gentle beings would think that its an advertisement. My aim is not to advertise, but merely to create an awareness to wikipedians that there is a festival out there that showcases some of these elements. For instance, would you ever be able to see an 'orang asli' or experience an authentic 'kampong' lifestyle if you were in Malaysia? I'm merely suggesting where we can find these elements. My rationale is this: you can search for 'orang asli', 'kampong' and 'hulu langat' in the wikipedia, and I can tell you one place where you can experience or see for yourselves these elements in a most authentic state, ie not in a museum or shopping mall. To point a place on a map, so to speak. I would sincerely appreciate if you'd re-consider. And like I mentioned, is a place that bridges the gap between urban and kampong lifestyles in Malaysia. Thanks!

• Isn't "creat[ing] an awareness to wikipedians that there is a festival out there that showcases some of these elements" by definition advertising? Delete. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

sugarbabe: I think its cool to have it in. There's nothing wrong to shout out something great like this fest. I don't really think of it as an advertisement. Let it stay, won't harm a soul.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave_Zarzycki

vanity, non-notable 193.190.253.144 11:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete, substubby too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged as such. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedy or otherwise. Alf 13:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with launchd. JYolkowski // talk 01:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Given time this will grow. AlistairMcMillan 01:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 05:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B683 road

While major highways are encyclopedic, B roads are not. Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. User:SPUI is entirely aware of the discussion around whether or not all B roads are notable, and is making a WP:POINT. Proto t c 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This road is entirely unremarkable. It's not the longest nor the shortest of its kind, it doesn't appear to be particularly dangerous and it's not a famous location. Just the fact it's there is not enough to include it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all B roads. --SPUI (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are in the middle of a debate over all B roads. Currently, there are 17 votes for delete all, 2 for keep all, and (I think) 11 for keep only notable, listify rest. Sdedeo 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no vote, only a "discussion". --SPUI (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the consensus on B-roads. Pilatus 15:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on B roads, so I have struck out the lies. --SPUI (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus Tonywalton  | Talk 15:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of B roads in Great Britain then delete. — RJH 16:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably after info is added to List of B roads in Great Britain. Gazpacho 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor uninteresting road. One of thousands. --TimPope 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - in my opinion there is a rough consensus, though certainly not unanimity, in the discussion on B-roads. Regardless of whether or not consensus exists, for someone heavily involved in that discussion to create new B-road stubs while that discussion is ongoing is unwise, and borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep any road that makes a claim to notability, unlike this one. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - forget WP:POINT, this borders on trolling. the wub "?/!" 20:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-23 T 21:22:41 Z
• Delete, there really isn't anything interesting, notable, encyclopedic or informative about a B road. The discussion appears to have a rough consensus against B-roads too, and I question the wisdom, if not the reason, of creating such articles with that borne in mind. -Splash 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Jonathunder 22:28, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete'. No claim to notability. Not notable just by being. Tear up the tarmack and return the fields of bytes to the clean green way nature intended. Sabine's Sunbird 01:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless, unencyclopedic, and trivial roadcruft substub, not to mention disruption to make a point. --Calton | Talk 01:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I humbly submit that author and nominator are equally guilty of breaching WP:POINT. -- Visviva 04:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 05:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:POINT, stop cluttering up Wiki with roadcruft. If the B road is notable, it'll have an actual name, I have a feeling that the author has never actually seen a B road. - Hahnchen 00:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is as ridiculous as that 56th street...  Grue  19:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B6186 road

While major highways are encyclopedic, B roads are not. Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. User:SPUI is entirely aware of the discussion around whether or not all B roads are notable, and is making a WP:POINT. Proto t c 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not disrupting Wikipedia. Thus I have struck through your baseless accusation. --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the article itself is not disruptive, striking through the comments of others because you disagree is disruptive and unacceptable. Kindly refrain. -- Visviva 12:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete see VFD on B683 road. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all B roads. --SPUI (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are in the middle of a debate over all B roads. Currently, there are 17 votes for delete all, 2 for keep all, and (I think) 11 for keep only notable, listify rest. Sdedeo 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep lots of people drive on this road. Klonimus 09:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no vote, only a "discussion". --SPUI (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the consensus on B-roads. Pilatus 15:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on B roads, so I have struck out the lies. --SPUI (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Pilatus Tonywalton  | Talk 15:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of B roads in Great Britain where it is already covered, then delete. — RJH 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Jonathunder 22:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete, per the way the wind is blowing in the consensus debate.Gateman1997 16:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not specifically notable. Gazpacho 16:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor uninteresting road. One of thousands. --TimPope 16:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - in my opinion there is a rough consensus, though certainly not unanimity, in the discussion on B-roads. Regardless of whether or not consensus exists, for someone heavily involved in that discussion to create new B-road stubs while that discussion is ongoing is at the very least unwise, and borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roads are not inherently notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - forget WP:POINT, this borders on trolling. the wub "?/!" 21:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-23 T 21:20:53 Z
• Delete, there really isn't anything interesting, notable, encyclopedic or informative about a B road. The discussion appears to have a rough consensus against B-roads too, and I question the wisdom, if not the reason, of creating such articles with that borne in mind. -Splash 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable road. Sabine's Sunbird 01:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. A merge is okay with me as well. JYolkowski // talk 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless, unencyclopedic, and trivial substub roadcruft, not to mention disruption to make a point. --Calton | Talk 01:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 05:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and other ones.  Grue  19:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Same reasoning as others. B roads are minor country routes, see arguments in the consensus debate. - Hahnchen 01:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by some other admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Vincent

Non notable bio--KURANDO 11:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article is not a speedy, as it asserts notability. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any such assertion. What do you see as a claim to notability? I don't want to make the same mistake again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"His actvities in hacker culture include projects for the Phone Losers of America (for which he emceed a panel at The Fifth H.O.P.E.,) writing and editing the Phone Losers of America spinoff zine United Phone Losers, and regular attendance of the New York City 2600 meetings." It's a patently absurd claim of notability, but it's a claim nonetheless. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That interpretation would make WP:CSD A7 pointless. If a claim is patently absurd it isn't in this sense a claim at all. But in this case, it isn't a question of absurdity. If those statements are true it still doesn't make the person notable for wikipedia purposes, not even arguably. Thus what they claim isn't "notability". This should be speedy deleted. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in its current form, CSD A7 is far too weak. But that's what it says. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See` Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios) for my views on this at greatger length. These views are not accepted by all. But I think pretty much every one would accpt that a claim which, if absloutely true would not be notable enough for a wikipedia article is not a "claim of notability" under A7. Check the debates at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 to see what people said as they were discussing what became CSD`A7. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Reserved. I have greeted and pointed the intial editor here. Also gave heads up to RV himself. Alf 14:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I see no assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. I so no claim of notaility here. DES ^(talk) 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone who's voted so far has said speedy delete. Why do the speedy tags keep getting removed? This seems a textbook case of A7, as explained above. Friday (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable JoJan 18:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julio Farinacci Fontecha

Vanity, only 2 links in google (plus one from wikipedia, and one of wikipedia mirror). andy 11:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B1249 road

The B1249 is a minor road from Willerby to Skipsea – see where it is on Google Maps. (Willerby is near the top of the page, in the middle, the road then runs South and then turns East in Driffield.)

The article was nominated for deletion once back in August here, when there was no consensus to delete; someone else accidentally put is up for deletion a few days later and quickly withdrew the nomination. The article hasn't grown much since, and there is not much to say about this road except that it is a minor road linking two Yorkshire villages.

Editors who are not from Britain might read the article on B roads. In Britain, B-roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arteries; unlike A-roads they are quite unimportant in the grander scheme of traffic infrastructure and the numbering is used for bookkeeping and local reference.

Delete per the consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 19:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all numbered roads and per Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom.Gateman1997 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gateman, you said this above too. Can you point to anything in Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom that supports what you're saying (besides your comment :)? Because what I see says just the opposite. It's not clear whether the consensus is to delete or merge, but it's definitely not keep! rodii 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on that consensus page is the point I'm making with my vote. The vote was 13 keeps to 18 deletes which is not consensus in any way shape or form.Gateman1997 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see only four clear keeps. I see a bunch of comments with some version of "keep only if notable". It comes down, I think, to the idea that there has to be some way of establishing notability beyond just the fact that it's a numbered road. YMMV. rodii 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per consensus. Stifle 14:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I originally nominated this road a few months ago. As I mentioned back then, I actually live near this road, and travel on it every now and again. But it's just not a notable road, it's a single carriage road with a pretty low amount of traffic on it. - Hahnchen 16:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep B roads as per my comments in the discussion. --SPUI (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SPUI . -- JJay 05:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn road --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article on an interesting British B road. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you eleborate on this assertion? What exactly is it that makes this road interesting that the consensus that generally sees B-roads deleted should not be respected? Pilatus 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. Just because you dont find it interesting doesnt mean somebody doesnt. Although if its articles about non notable and non interesting things that are eligable for deletion, I might just put a delete notice on George Dubya's page...... Jcuk 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is perfectly useful as it is, it's on an encyclopedic topic. and it may well grow in time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, no fair, you voted already! :p Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spamglok and Strange Presence

The first line says it all: "Spamglok is a fictitious rock band...". Google search with "Lance Bland" "Christopher Bland" gives 0 hits. Also delete Strange Presence about the same people, nowhere found through google. 80.223.148.221 11:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (logged in as feydey 11:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete both - appears to be band vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 12:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Del Tucats 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETED by Raul654, per his comment at the bottom. -Splash 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy Style Troll

I am submitting this VFD debate to the August 23 list, not because of a small number of votes (there are awfully many votes), but because it apparently wasn't submitted to the August 3 VFD listing. I am not voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Del Nonnotable neologism. For a www phenomenon, a pitiful count 59 of unique google hits. mikka (t) 01:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Try looking at Google again. I get 4,430 [10] - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I get slightly less if I use this Google search - Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Without the quotes, most of the results are for pages that just happen to have the words "adequacy" and "style" (or less often, "adequacy" and "troll" or "style" and "troll"). I'd estimate less than 80 of the pages actually refer to the subject of the article. Google Groups gives one hit. Google gives 59 with quotes. --Carnildo 03:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I conceded the point. If you'd like, I can delete the article myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The subject article is linked with trolling in general, and the website adequacy.org, google test for this is useless Adamn 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Google news search - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I get 165 hits for "Adequacy Style Troll" in quotes, all but 59 of which disappear by filtering out the subtitle "a brief refresher". So more than half the Google hits are copies of or references to the same single article. Dystopos 05:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 01:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - hardly. Very notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 3 August (UTC)2005
  • OK, let's back this up with fact. See Adequacy.org#Adequacy_style. I think it's enough for an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative article, valuable insight into trolling. --Timecop 05:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. The only person who wants to keep it, it seems, is the author. And it's not what I'd call "very notable." -- Blackcap 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's interesting, considering this VfD has been open for no more than about 30 minutes. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Special:Contributions/Blackcap - 4 edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry--didn't check the time. It's true; not many edits, but it's a fresh username and I have been using Wikipedia for several years now. Blackcap 17:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You must keep this, If you delete it there will be alot of people who put it back up. You cannot argue with hundreds of trolls! You are repressing Troll Culture and our way of life. Perhaps if you were interested in learning about our ways you would be more tolerant. anonymous - 21:56, 2 August 2005 (EST)
  • What life? Delete. Agentsoo 02:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you make fun of black people and their way of life? Just because we are different, doesn't mean you have an excuse to make fun of us. We are a unique culture on the internet Trolling is our way of life, Many people don't understand why buddhists meditate, some make fun of them for doing so. Those people are ignorant, just like you. anonymous - 22:21, 2 August 2005 (EST)
  • I favour your vote but oppose your obviously inflammatory reasons. We will never be intimidated into not deleting an article. Ignore the straw man. Deco 04:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Resisting the urge to say "It's a Kuro5hin thing... you wouldn't understand." This is without a doubt webforumcruft, but it's all true and it's all verifiable. Although he would later go on to become a troll himself, Localroger's article is right on target. While much of the article is only of interest to K5/Slashdot/Adequacy weenies, I think we could all benefit from a good study of the psychology of well-executed trolling. It is possible to hold a good-faith opinion on both sides of the deletionism/inclusionism debate. Certain items undoubtedly do not belong on Wikipedia. As Americans of faith, we should oppose attempts to infiltrate this encyclopedia with the witchcraft and homoeroticism of Harry Potter, for example. How do we objectively decide what to delete and what to keep? "Erring on the side of caution" dictates that we keep an article in the absence of a compelling argument for deletion (such as godlessness). With that heuristic in mind, I see no reason to delete the article in question. FYI, Localroger has also written an excellent treatise on post-singularity zombie rape [11]. I laughed, I cried; it was better than Cats. Rhobite 02:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • But it's so poorly written. Delete or Rewrite
• Keep Trolls are an important part of Scandanavian mythology. And, as Wikipedia becomes ever more English-speaking-centric, it is precisely these minor cultural references that will come under attack, especially from the Christian right. forgotten 02:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC) User has only 2 edits Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this as written (or as titled) makes for a good article. The phenomenon is of interest, but not the way it's presented here. JRP 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm... {{sofixit}}. If you are not arguing against the notability or verifiability, I fail to see how this is a valid vote. I can point you to many articles that are terrible, yet not a valid deletion candidate. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I realize you are an administrator and I show deference to that fact, but you may want to step back a bit from this. Your reply to Blackcap was a low blow and just about at the level of name-calling. Let's be civil here and let the process work, one way or the other. JRP 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, don't show deference to the fact that I am an admin (really!). If you feel I've been rude or obnoxious, say so. There is no excuse for any admin behaving badly... if I am having a bad day (whatever), then I should take a wikibreak and come back later. I realise I've been a bit short with people lately (dealing with too many controversial articles does that to you), and will most likely take a short wikibreak soon. My point stands, I just apologise if I was rather abrupt. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. The unorthodox inclusion of this on the DYK template by Ta bu shi da yu to promote the topic also does not sit well with me.--nixie 02:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Apologies for this. Was not attempting to promote the article, this was more a failure to read the procedure. I offered to rollback, but someone got to it before me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Del. Neologism and non-encyclopædic. It seems like a troll in and of itself (though not quite a self-serving example of the form it purports to describe). At best there could be an abbreviated section of it merged into the article on Internet trolls, though even that's a stretch. The technique or form could be described without this blatant effort to assign this particular name to it.JimD 03:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am not a troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. the "blatant effort" was done by K5 and Adequacy.org users. If you are implying I made this up, you'd be dead-set wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism, non-encyclopedic, unverifiable. As written it's riddled with vague instructional statments, opinions and sarcasm. Even if it were re-written to be NPOV, this "style" of trolling is certainly not uniquely characteristic to Adequacy, but is instinctively childish behaviour that has been used in unproductive discourse since before any of us were born. If the designation of "AST" to describe such behavior is a Kuro5hin thing, then discuss it (briefly!) on the Kuro5hin article. Dystopos 04:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In no way is this unverifiable. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I quote Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy) on obscure topics: "Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles." Dystopos 05:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Localroger is a credible source. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the article was created after a breif mention of it was made in the article about the troll group GNAA.

Ta bu was trying to turn a red link blue. But, if this article is not good enough to be on it's own, then I suggest a merge to Kuro5hin, since that is where AST got started at. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Hmmm... comment is fair enough, however should probably be merged into Adequacy.org. I think it is a decent topic in it's own right, however. That's why I created it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wetfloor.co.uk has a much better-written treatment of the phenomenon [12] which gives a clue as to how this topic could be merged into Internet troll. Dystopos 05:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful and informative for me.--Jondel 05:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everyking 06:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep One of the best articles i've read on here yet. Adamn 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why on earth would you delete this article, unless it were to supress the concept? Dozens of folks worked hard on Adequacy, and thousands of users contributed to the site for several years! The AST is a very specific variant of the generalized concept of Internet troll phenomenon. If this article actually sees deletion, I will know that wikipedia is shamefully biased through this process and doubly so for crowing about principled behavior as a selling point for contributions. Consider your motives! --Momocrome 07:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) User's only edit Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If AST is a "very specific" variant, there has been no evidence shown of its specificity except to say that, as a trolling practice, it's more involved than just calling people faggots. Dystopos 13:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Adequacy or Internet troll article. This needs massive cleanup; a lot of what it talks about is not specific at all and applies to any troll, then you've got portions that are how-tos and/or original research and would belong at Wikibooks. (A Wikibooks module on trolling? Hmm...) After cleanup I seriously doubt something remains that would warrant a separate article. JRM · Talk 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Wikify! Stop wasting time with spurious delete messages on interesting and well-written articles, when there's a lot of other stuff we could be doing. -Ich 09:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• deleteGeni 12:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism and ban trolls. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 04:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, and fix POV. I think something more along the lines of "Trolling on Adequacy.org" is a good title. The article has serious POV problems that need to be fixed, but it's not irreparable, and doesn't meet any deletion criteria I can think of. Deco 04:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Deco, very informative article on trolling. Klonimus 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Move what is necessary to Adequacy.org. This isn't notable enough for a separate article.
• Delete, on second thought. Nothing worth merging. Aquillion 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

All who voted "keep" seem to miss an improtant issue: the article just reeks of original research, even if it is copied from kuro5hin. mikka (t) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, real original when the information is all from from a secondary source. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the one who invented the notion and published at its own site. And someone other copied it here. The term "original research" does not mean "research by wikiauthor." The problem is not authorsip; the problem is absense of peer review here. Exacly in the same way I may copy into wikipedia an article of some kook that describes his discovery of a hollow ball inhabited by trolls inside Moon. mikka (t) 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. claviola (talk to me) 19:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup (mercilessly). -- J. Yossarian 20:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The fact that an article is badly written is totally irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted. This is a wiki. If the writing's bad, we rewrite it. Penelope D 06:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to Merge, mostly on account of all the sockpuppets. Some of the information would still be good to have in the adequacy.org, Internet troll, and/or kuro5hin articles. Penelope D 20:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Then redirect to GNAA and protect if necessary. Radiant_>|< 10:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Nandesuka 12:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify it. --Apyule 13:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Little-used neologism whose article fairly reeks of original research. --Calton | Talk 13:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research. Where is this phenomenon documented anywhere else? A small amount of it may be worth adding to Internet troll--Tysto 16:13, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd view this article as a borderline keep, however, the efforts of the sockpuppets to force it on here have convinced me it isn't notable enough on its own. "Sockpuppet limit has been exceeded". Delete, and repress troll culture ;). --Scimitar ^parley 16:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research, Non-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge. Trollderella 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Where would you have it merged to? -Splash 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd assume to adequacy.org, which would be a fine idea. Penelope D 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is either a neologism, original research, pure creativity or a subset of that list. In any of the 9 cases, it should be deleted. -Splash 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, GNAA trolling, supported by loads of sockpuppets. Zoe 23:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay about a neologism. Widespread usage not established. Gamaliel 05:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete troll thats not notable - don't feed the trolls! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Delete, sockpuppets away. --80.222.69.104 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with adequacy.org. Andre (talk) 23:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was just going to read this article. I hope it won't be gone tomorrow. Unsigned comment from 82.73.0.139 which has only 2 edits Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 82.73.0.139 (unsigned above) (No, it's not me.) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to adequacy.org. I think that the GFDL text is worth having in Wikipedia, good summary of trolling techniques. -Kwh 05:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established.

Trolls and sockpuppets not withstanding, consensus is to delete. I've deleted. →Raul654 20:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full Circle (band)

Non-notable band. Al 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I almost flipped out before I realized I was thinking of A Perfect Circle. -- Plutor 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete allmusic.com finds two so-named bands. Neither have any albums. Google is no help here, obviously, and we don't have the artists surnames so adding a name to the search isn't much good. They appear to have been writing their album for the last two years... -Splash 22:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of compliance with WP:Music. Indeed, when I clicked on the band website, this article is a direct copy of their about page so its a copyvio as well. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio process completed. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem-Reaction-Solution

WP:ISNOT a how-to, especially for stuff like this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this crap. --RoySmith 12:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Problem: This. Reaction: WTF?? Solution: Delete. --Apyule 13:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - If this were funnier, it would be funny, like Apyule. --Tysto 16:12, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• I've hunted around to see whether this is a widely known psychological idea/theory/etc., but drawn a blank. Unless someone's got better proof than this article (that the idea is a widely accepted in psychology) delete. Sliggy 16:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research :-) --DrTorstenHenning 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No. Just...no. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Managing your inbound calls

Advertisment Usrnme h8er 12:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising Stephenb 12:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Stephenb. --Apyule 13:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Badvertisment. Alf 14:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Infotisement. --Tysto 16:15, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete of course. --DrTorstenHenning 17:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. This is a no-brainer. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podcaching

This is certainly a "neo" neologism - coined less than two months ago. The term may cache on (sorry for the pun) but right now is has 287 hits on Google, many either Wikipedia mirrors or repeats of the blog that coined the term. It makes sense as a neologism, it's just a question of whether Wikipedia should be used to popularize a new term. -- DS1953 12:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep For such a new word it seems genuine, and one of the big advantages of a Wiki is that it can be on the cutting edge, so I guess it deserves a chance. --Apyule 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As yet non-notable neologism. Sdedeo 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Ooh, let's document more micro-culture phenomena with "pod" in the name! podsex, podcooking, podtourism, podguilt, podwidow, podracism, podophilia, podjournalism, podism, antipodism, antidisestablishpodarianism.... Someone does them somewhere! Write a sub-stub for all of them! --Tysto 16:26, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Surely podcooking would find a place on the Cookbook as something to do with mange tout peas? As for Podcaching, delete per Sdedo and Tysto Tonywalton  | Talk 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• PodeleteDunc|☺ 21:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Podcruft. Optichan 22:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good cache, DS1953. This is a neologism through and podthrough. -Splash 22:32, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Alice

Someone's band, Non-notable. Only mention of them on google is WP's Alice disambig. Also absent from allmusic.com. akaDruid 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article itself says the band is dead; there's no way that theyr'e ever goign to meet WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 14:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band. --Etacar11 04:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. --Firsfron 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Groeck 15:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even an article about a now defunct band is valuable for an encyclopedia. we don't want to cover only existing subjects here. --80.108.115.184 23:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad is of no significance --Grcampbell 00:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Since we prevail on placing articles at the most common usage, and the companies website itself refers to it as KTF, I'm not going to move it myself. I will, however, create the full-name as a redirect. Since that redirect will have a trivial history, anyone can WP:BOLDLY move the existing article over it if they want to. -Splash 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTF

This was previously deleted as blatant advertising. However, on VFU it was pointed out that the article was rewritten just before its deletion, and not all voters had been aware of that. So, it was decided to give it another chance. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 07:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Large company and the article seems to be fairly neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a problem now. --Apyule 07:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the rewrite solved the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks alright to me __earth 08:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a very poorly written article. As it stands, it is a two-paragraph summary of the company's alleged business dealings. Complete contravention of the NPOV policy: everything written about it is from the company's point of view. What do its competitors think of the company? How do its customers feel about it? Any studies on customer satisfaction? If so, how well has it done? Who do the governments, local and national, think about it? Has it had legal troubles? What is its economic history? What role has it played in its industry? Is it merely one of several players? Are those claims about its finances accurate? Why is it notable, aside from having a lot of customers, which is something millions and millions of companies around the world have? What particular notability has it a claim to that warrants mention in an encyclopedia? The fact that it introduced ring tones (I don't know, I'm just asking, as that seems to be the only claim of uniqueness I can see)? These questions pertain to WP:NPOV and WP:N. Next, we have questions pertaining to WP:V. To write a good encyclopedia article, the subject must be eminently verifiable from multiple reputable, independent sources. What sources were used to write this article? I see links to the company website. What primary or secondary sources were used to write this work? Or can be used by us if we wish to expand it? Do any exist? WP articles cannot be products of original research, they must be based on multiple reputable primary or secondary sources. See WP:RS. Like thousands of other articles currently on WP, this one seems to contravene some major WP policies and guidelines. Problem is what to do with articles that may indeed be about a notable subject (and this one may well be, I don't know; not enough is said about it for one to know), but which are in their present state really weak (and will likely always be weak)? After studying the policies, it seems to me this conundrum is open to interpretation, and is in fact the source of much dispute on AfD. My vote here is to delete (mainly because I think it will be near impossible for WP editors to source the material (what exists, that is) to write a good article per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOR), but equally many well-meaning editors will vote the other way. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  09:35:19, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• One last issue: The page is currently called KTF, the abbreviated form of the company's name. As it will likely be kept, could someone check if the title is in keeping with WP:MOS? Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  09:38:16, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• Delete Not NPOV. DV8 2XL 13:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, "not NPOV" is not a reason for deletion, feel free to edit the article. Kappa 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep POV, needs some more verification Roodog2k 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep significant company. -- DS1953 00:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough Dottore So 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable company. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The company appears to have annual gross revenue over US$5 billion, and is listed on its country's main stock exchange -- clearly notable. Google reveals a variety of articles referencing the company. The article should be kept at KTF as that appears to be the way the company refers to itself in English. --Metropolitan90 02:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Sensible votes people. I checked WP:MOS, which astonishingly does not appear to have a section on abbreviations, but does have one on acronyms. Cheers—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:19:55, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Little Ivies

Personal essay. Original research. Non-neutral point of view. Article itself notes that there "is no authoritative list." So, where did the list come from? The personal authority of contributors, I suppose. It also notes that the term is "misleading." If good evidence is presented that this is a frequently used term that refers to a list of schools that is as well-defined as Public Ivies then I'd accept the topic as encyclopedic. Nominator votes "delete." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. (We just did the Midwestern Ivy League too.) JDoorjam 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have never heard of such a thing. Jawed 15:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google seems to show that the term is non-notable. If the author can provide authoratitive sources for the list from (e.g.) a newspaper, that's a different matter. Sdedeo 15:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent research from other VfD votes convinces me otherwise. These sources should be included in the main article which will surely prevent it from future VfDs. Sdedeo 17:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up, expand. It's been a long time since I was up on current college-application slang, but it appears to be a widely used term (I certainly knew what it meant before I saw the article). Google for "Little Ivies" and "US News" finds a few dozen hits where the term is used on academic sites: e.g., this Harvard mag article assumes you know what it means. There doesn't need to be any sort of "official" list for it to be a generally-understood term. Bikeable 15:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and or merge with Public Ivies if there's any information that Public Ivies doesn't have. Lullabye Muse 15:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; unlike Midwestern Ivy League this term is in fact has historical and specific use in reference to the listed institutions listed, akin to Seven Sisters or the Five Colleges. See for instance such users as Associate Justice Kennedy, Episcopal High School of Houston, Midwest Elite Hockey League, The Williams Club. It is a completely different set of schools from the Public Ivies and they should emphatically not be merged. - choster 17:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, wait: Amherst belongs to the Five Colleges. Does it belong to the Little Ivies too? If so, then, what about the Seven Sisters: are they Little Ivies? If not, why not? Most All (I don't want to start any arguments!) of them are academically fine, fairly old, and socially respectable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a common term esp. for Amherst and Williams. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • Anyone got any reference that could serve as some kind of external authority for which colleges belong, and what, if anything it means other than "good college?" Most of the references cited so far do seem to "assume you know what it means." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't especially think we need one. It means, effectively, small, old, private liberal arts schools in the Northeast United States. What schools exactly should be included is a matter of content for editors to determine. I'm taking the liberty of removing Davidson, which was added by an anon and for which I can find zero relevant hits on Google, and which is by location alone questionable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:57, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
      • Well (I know this is OT here but we have a group discussing it here) if the article is kept, as seems likely, I'm thinking it should be revised drastically. Your above definition sounds plausible, anyone got an external source for that definition or anything like it? I'd add "academically distinguished" to the list of adjectives. And apparently only colleges that were historically men's college count are included, right? No Wellesley or Smith, which otherwise would meet your criteria. I'm thinking that the article should say it is a vague, generic term for: small old liberal arts colleges that are academically distinguished, located in the Northeast U.S., and historically were men's colleges, as exemplified by Amherst and Williams. With a note on the Talk page strongly discouraging listmaking, because, unlike the Ivy League or the Five Colleges or the Public Ivies, there is no definitive list or objective criterion for inclusion. Any such list is subject to the same objections as the "list of notable colleges" which was VfDed years ago. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep Trollderella 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, arbitrary list, barely googles. Radiant_>|< 08:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This material warrants one or maybe two sentences in the "Terminology" section of the Ivy League article. Pick the most illuminating quote out of the usage examples and incorporate it there. (Note that the "Associate Justice Kennedy" link doesn't actually include the phrase "little ivies", saying instead "Little Ivy League". It illustrates the general concept, but not the specific term.) I trust everyone remembers the Cynic's Dictionary definition of the Ivy League — eight schools who agree to play each other in football so that one of them will win. Anville 16:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Dysepsion 19:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unlike Midwestern Ivy League, this is not an invented term and actually has currency. That's reason enough to keep it. Individual contibutors are then free to quibble over what schools to include and support their arguments accordingly. I think incorporating "Little Ivies" into the Ivy League article is a particularly bad idea. That league is defined as only 8 schools, and an elaboration of the "Little Ivies" beyond their present (brief) mention there opens the door for every other other college wanting to be mentioned as some kind of "Ivy." If there are "Rust Belt Ivies," "Pacific Rim Ivies," "Middle Eastern Ivies" etc, let the contributor create a new article where the legitimacy of the term can be discussed and decided on. -18.95.1.22 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems notable (though obviously not a hugely popular term.) Google isn't the end-all be-all of determining notability. Since it was nominated, some good work has been put into this article to provide sources and expand the article. I think this is a good entry that has some potential. ~ Syrae Faileas 20:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some aspects of this article probably require discussion, but there is no question that this term is in common usage. The list is ill-defined by it's nature, but that isn't reason to delete the article. However, pointing out how arbitrary the inclusion of some schools (after Amherst/Williams), is essential to understanding the usage of the term. Also, the 2003 Wall Street Journal ranking of "Feeder schools" used this term in reference to Williams.
• KEEP. Term is common. Neutrality^talk 01:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP.The "real" Ivy League was similarly an informal grouping of colleges until it was formally organized. However, in that time period "Ivy League" was an accepted and used term. The lackof a formal organization for the "little Ivies" is not grounds to deny the concept its own page. [[Cjs56 03:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)]]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fungclunctious

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Alf 14:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Boojum 14:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for what looks to be a personal attack, and for a self-made page for an inane neologism with all the lifespan of a whelk in a supernova. --80.222.69.104 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reason given by the nominator --Mysidia (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the Eds-Treme!

TV-web-site-game-cruft. That's right, three kinds of cruft in one article. It's all non-notable. Several Times 14:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. File under who cares now, and a big who cares in ten years.--Scimitar ^parley 16:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE. Same reasons as Several Times.—Sixteen Left 21:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Several Times. the wub "?/!" 13:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.  Grue  19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] !! 6- -.4rtist.com

What is this?? I have no idea. Delete - unless he's some sort of famous graffiti artist, which is possible, but it's kinda hard to search. PubLife 14:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

i´ve noticed later, that i can publish my "extended" 4rtistname

"6_or_SeX-_-█═════█████████──────.4rtist.com" in wilipedia but wikipedia can´t handle the name as a filename so the reduced version ^{Unsigned comment by User:4rtist}

• ^{Delete as vanity. The page is both about and created by this artist (sorry, "4rtist"). --Several Times 14:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{I speedied as nonsense when I saw it. Secretlondon 16:20, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] LaChambre}

^{Appears to be NN band and a great example of linkspam (10 different links back to their site). Hard to get a Google listing what with "LaChambre" being a last name, but "LaChambre" band canada is down to 142 with a lot of irrelevant links still coming up -- I'm gonna guesstimate 10 hits, tops, are legit. Page also reads like a copyvio but I can't nail it down. Delete. — Lomn | Talk 14:16:37, 2005-08-23 (UTC)}

^{I am adding band members Fred Noise, Dom Pace, Matt Groove, and MA Vox as part of the VfD, these added after Several Times and Marskell voted. — Lomn | Talk 14:30:21, 2005-08-23 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete as band vanity. --Several Times 14:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete Vanity. Marskell 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete Band vanity. Emergenza success is nice, but it does not an encyclopedic band make. --Zootm 14:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete the band and all its members. Fails WP:MUSIC, at least going by their website--two EPs, both apparently self-released, and a tour schedule consisting of 10 shows in Quebec City and one in Montreal. Meelar (talk) 14:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)}

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

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

^{The result of the debate was kept. mikka (t) 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}

^{[edit] Benjamín Urrutia}

^{This article should be deleted, because it doesn't even explain well why Urrutia is important or which academic titles he holds or where he studied. It also doesn't give any details about his life. This person's not even well-known in Ecuador, like some politicians who are not even mentioned on Wikipedia. The article should at least be expanded and explain why this person is important. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)}

• ^{Speedily Keep. Article quality is not a sufficient reason for deletion. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{It is not article quality that is questioned; it is person's notability, which is not demonstrated. mikka (t) 18:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{Comment. Hey, it's not just the quality. The whole content is useless. There are lots of Ecuadorian scholars out there who are not even mentioned on Wikipedia, and Urrutia, he's not even famous. About 594 Google results. That's nothing. The reason I put this article on the deletion list is not just because of the quality. It's also the content. The quality just shows how content-less this article is. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Keep, but not speedily. There's enough published work for me to think he's at least borderline notable. Additionally, this encyclopedia records people who are notable, not neccessarily famous; it's a key distinction. --Scimitar parley 16:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
  • Abstain. I've done a bit more research, and listened to Mikka- I'm not convinced this guy is notable anymore.--Scimitar ^parley 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. published author => notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 17:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• not decided yet. Smacks like a hoax or thoroughly vandalized. Guys, is your vote based on knowledge or on your opinion on the article superficial appearance? mikka (t) 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  For example, you say: "Published author". "Interview with Master Yoda" does it really look like a work of Biblical scholar? "Slanted Glory" (variant: "Slanted Gloria") - no google hits. Quick google search shows the name as a translator, not as a notable scholar. A list of journal articles is not basis for notability. mikka (t) 18:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on my dresser, The Logia of Yeshua, co-authored by Benjamin Urrutia. The "Interview with Yoda" looks like the result of a mistake made by an editor based on this website (which seems to show that Benjamin Urrutia is still writing — in the review of The Lost Religion of Jesus on that page, he calls Jesus "Yeshua". --goethean ॐ 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

When you search for "Benjamín Urrutia" in Spanish, Google shows only about 13 results. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

When you search Google Ecuador or restrict the search to Ecuador, it shows zero (0) results 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, we don't know who this guy is. We just have a list of publications. Anyone can publish books. That's irrelevant. We don't know what he did in Ecuador. We don't know where he studied. We don't know which university he attended. We know nothing, at least from the article. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just because he studied at Brigham Young University, that doesn't make him more relevant. There are a lot of Ecuadorian intellectuals who've studied in the U.S. This article here is irrelevant. There are lots of people who have published books about Jesus or theology or Christianity. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[13] "Benjamin Urrutia is a teacher, linguist, and scholar who has been writing and publishing about the Bible for a quarter of a century. He was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and educated at Brigham Young University. His numerous articles on biblical subjects have appeared in American Anthropologist, Dialogue, Egyptological Studies, and Mythlore, among others. Benjamin Urrutia lives in Chicago." (from 'About the translators' p. 67) --goethean ॐ 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I saw that one before, but that doesn't show that he's an important person.2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mythlore: Mythlore is a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the genres of myth and fantasy. Beginning in 2005 Mythlore will appear once per year as a double issue in late Summer or early Fall. [14] 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Latter-day Science Fiction is a collection of parables. From what I see, Urrutia is a Mormon story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[15] THE LIGHT OF EDEN. By Benjamin Urrutia. Of primordial importance in the contemporary novelist J. R. R. Tolkien's saga of Arda is the story of the Eden-like land of Aman, with its white and golden Trees of Light, whose destruction by the enemy Morgoth plunged that land into darkness. The story bears a slight resemblance to that of Genesis, Chapter 3, which also tells of a land of Paradise, which was lost because of the intrigue of an enemy, the Serpent. Two trees, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, also appear in the Genesis account, but otherwise the similarity is small indeed: there is no hint that these trees produced light, or that they were injured in any way at the Fall. Surprisingly, a much closer parallel to the Tolkienian narrative can be found in ancient Mexican mythology-the story of Tamoanchán.

To me he looks like a Mormon Harry Potter fan, nothing else. He's irrelevant here on Wikipedia. On American Anthropologist he wrote about J.R.R. Tolkien. Big deal. He's not an anthropologist. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is what a reader says about Urrutia's article on Egyptological Studies [16]:

Nibley does give some useful citations in his discussion of the Opening of the Mouth on pages 106-109 which Urrutia cites. The whole value of Urrutia's article is in Nibley's discussion and sources. I agree that Urrutia's article has no value outside of the referenced material in Nibley.

So Urrutia's not an egyptologist either. He's just a story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

He co-authored a book with Guy Davenport, a significant literary figure. In that book — which I have read — Urrutia and Davenport select and translate the sayings of Jesus from a variety of canonical and non-canonical sources. In itself, that establishes notability in my mind. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So he is a translator, not author. Big deal. mikka (t) 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep intersting. Trollderella 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What I said above about Urrutia, that he's not famous, that's just an understatement, because, quite frankly, Urrutia's a nobody in Ecuador. Who on earth is that man? He's a nobody. Just a translator and Harry Potter fan. Hey, religion's a business too. To me, this page is even spam, a kind of advertisement for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or something. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The single (and very thin) book co-authored/edited/translated with Guy Davenport is not really enough to make him notable. As for the other publications, American Anthropologist is an important journal, but all his contributions there (available through JSTOR) are very brief notes or comments of less than a page on articles by other people. On the whole, he doesn't appear notable enough. However, whether he is notable in Ecuador is in my opinion completely irrelevant; a lot of people are more notable abroad than in their home countries. Uppland 06:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete Looks like an obscure hack-writer. --Ghirlandajo 14:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Goethean. See also my comments here Tomer ^TALK 23:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] jacob soper

I am the author of this page. I am unsure what Wikipedia will make of it, and having now read the rules for Vanity Articles, I thought I should submit this page for Wikipedia to make its feelings known. Jake soper 14:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I completed this Vfd for the above user, and my vote is Delete. --Several Times 14:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, requested by author and also does not assert notability. PubLife 15:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator Lullabye Muse 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD Articles 7. Thank you to the page's author for nominating the article, look forward to being edited by you. Sliggy 17:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• This content would be fine if you wished to place it on your user page, however. Hope to see you around, and happy editing. Meelar (talk) 18:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy page. Uppland 06:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Self-admitted vanity by logged-in users needs userfying, not deletion. — JIP | Talk 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• This person does not meet the WP:BIO criteria, and Wikipedia is not the 'phone book. If Jake soper (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. 212.240.154.193 (talk · contribs)) had made any other contributions to Wikipedia my vote would have been "Userfy". However, he has not. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for people to have free user pages without contributing anything to the encyclopaedia. (That's not the intention of the author in this case. But it's the reason that I don't vote "Userfy" when in cases such as these there are no other contributions at all to the encyclopaedia.) Moreover, note that the user himself has expressed a wish at Talk:Jacob soper not to have this as his user page. Even were there grounds for userfication in this case, that would override them. Delete. Uncle G 16:02:50, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Uncle G. Also, just to Mr. Soper, it's a nice piece in terms of a philosophical statement. However, Wikipedia is not the place to make a philosophical statement. You say on your talk page, "Is there room for one small, ordinary person in this gallery?", but Wikipedia is not a gallery, nor is it a forum for opinions, philosophy, or bios of ordinary people: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a well written article, and I hope that you stay and continue to contribute, but please understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. --Blackcap | talk 19:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do wish every vanity writer would be so considerate, we'd have a lot more time to hunt for actual VfD suspects. --80.222.69.104 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nascar celebration

Delete: Per guideline "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_do_with_a_problem_page.2Fimage.2Fcategory. This is a non-topic. Sports celebrations are not unique to NASCAR, nor is using a sport's equipment in the celebration, and certainly trophies are hardly unique to NASCAR. Further, there's virtually no content. Article has been around for two months. It is a sub-stub, and unlikely to ever be anything but a sub-stub. --Durin 14:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. Al 16:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no value. Alf 19:09, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animexclusive

non notable, poorly written article Elfguy 14:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. linkspam, advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 17:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this has an Alexa rank of....wait for it.... 4,950,000th ! I didn't even know they went that low! And, that is down about 4,000,000 places in the last 3 months, apparently. -Splash 22:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ok... Sorry for creating an irrevelant article. Please delete. --Polaralex 14:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Dudley

It's a bit of genealogy about a 17th-century settler. Nothing much to see here, except that his father was famous. Radiant_>|< 15:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator Sliggy 17:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a genealogy, and notability is not inherited. -Splash 22:38, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] $candalou$

Non existant phenomenon or extremely specialized jet set phenomenon. Shows no hits on Danish, Swedish or Norwegian google and no relevant hits in English Google. Author seems ignorant as to phenomenons meaning. Celcius 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, probably made up or non-notable, can't find anything on this (i.e. fails verifiability). Any Scandinavians (other than the nominator) care to comment? --IByte 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified; this vote changes to Abstain upon verification. android79 16:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per android. Alf 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• No Opinion. I created the page since someone added it wrongly to the Scandalous song by Prince page. (MistaTee 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, also can't verify. Uttaddmb 17:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomingpedia

This seems to be a vanity page on a minor topic. 69.237.198.2 15:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Please read the Talk:Bloomingpedia talk page for Bloomingpedia. -- Suso 2005-08-18 16:08 GMT
• Keep -- It should NOT be deleted just because someone does not like it. This is the whole point to have an online encyclopedia so people from anywhere can make their contribution. Marinochka13 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Brand-new, totally non-notable website. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. Thanks for the links to DavisWiki and SeattleWiki which will be VfDed in short order. --Tysto 16:20, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Comment: This was never listed on VfD itself. I've put it there now and the 5 days should restart since very few people will have seen this listing yet. Angela. 15:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Yes, and those other two articles should be VfDd as well, thanks Tysto. Sdedeo 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable Wiki. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. android79 16:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not yet notable. May be worth an entry in the furure. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tysto. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-23 T 21:20:30 Z
• Delete, being a Wiki doesn't make you notable. No Alexa traffic rank at all, either. -Splash 22:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; While nn, this is advertisment. Advertising on WP is evil and repulsive. Advertising Wiki's dosn't change that | Celcius 00:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable -- it's not even a month old! --Botsie 03:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect to the only blooming 'pedia. Radiant_>|< 08:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B2031 road

Delete, per the consensus on B-roads 213.78.163.193User:Pilatus 15:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all B roads. There is no consensus on B roads, so I have struck out the lies. --SPUI (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. SPUI, please try to keep things civil. I don't think it's a good idea to start VfDs in the middle of a consensus discussion, but editing other user's comments is definitely inflammatory. Sdedeo 16:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's also not good form to start articles of a disputed nature in the middle of a consensus discussion. Pilatus 17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the strike out; SPUI, please keep WP:Civility in mind when it occurs to you to do things like that. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are in the middle of a debate over all B roads. Currently, there are 17 signed arguments for delete all, 2 for keep all, and (I think) 11 for keep only notable, listify rest. Sdedeo 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no vote. --SPUI (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not say there was a vote, I said there were "signed arguments". Please stop editing other users comments. Sdedeo 16:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• There's nothing here that isn't already on List of B roads in Great Britain. Redirect or delete. — RJH 16:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the way the wind is blowing in the consensus debate sadly. Gateman1997 16:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or else listify to a suitable article. I will see if it can be expanded. I disagree with Pilatus' and Sdedeo's opinion on consensus (sdedeo's figures, 17 delete against 13 non-delete, don't suggest anything near consensus) but it is wrong to strike them out. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Others have counted 20/2/3/3 (delete all, keep all, merge into list, keep only very notable, make rest into list). Please stop tweaking the facts into something that suits you. Pilatus 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a minor part of the London to Brighton Vintage Car Rally. I added this reference. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A minor part? This belongs into London to Brighton Vintage Car Rally, where people are looking for it. Pilatus 17:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not specifically notable. Gazpacho 16:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor uninteresting road. One of thousands in UK, millions in the world. --TimPope 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - in my opinion there is a rough consensus, though certainly not unanimity, in the discussion on B-roads. Regardless of whether or not consensus exists, for someone heavily involved in that discussion to create new B-road stubs while that discussion is ongoing is at the very least unwise, and borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This road should be mentioned in the article for the London to Brighton Vintage Car Rally, if that rally is itself notable. There is no reason for it to have its own article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish sufficent notability. Gamaliel
• Delete as per TimPope DES ^(talk) 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - forget WP:POINT, this borders on trolling. the wub "?/!" 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~?Markaci? 2005-08-23 T 21:18:11 Z
• Delete: not notable. Jonathunder 22:31, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Delete nn tarmac. -Splash 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Non-notability is not a criterion for deletion. A merge is okay with me as well. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless, unencyclopedic, and trivial roadcruft, not to mention disruption to make a point. --Calton | Talk 01:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable road. Sabine's Sunbird 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• D, nn. Radiant_>|< 08:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all cruft Proto t c 11:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a highway article. We do keep California County Routes in the USA... --Rschen7754

  From the List of California County Routes it looks that a typical California county is served by maybe six County Routes and that many of these routes do serve more than one county. When comparing this with Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme, the equivalent to a US county route seems a three-digit A-road. B-roads are short roads (typically 10 km or less) connecting one village to the next, never a main throughfare. Pilatus 19:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  "Highway" in the UK refers to any road or even footpath (see Highway#Nomenclature). I doubt even the most ardent inclusionist would want to keep all UK highways. the wub "?/!" 07:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Firstly, it's absolutely correct to point out that "highway" is a generic term in the UK, and really this is just a country road that runs through a few minor English towns, mainly Caterham.

I don't count myself an "ardent inclusionist" but since the current article is completely encyclopedic I don't see why we should consider deleting it. It does no harm by existing and the information it provides is correct. I'm certainly in favor of deleting nonsense, vanity and whatnot from Wikipedia, but this road and most roads in England have been around for centuries.

Look at any road atlas of the British Isles. A general road atlas that omitted a single B road would not be worth buying. If an atlas purporting to represent driving conditions in England misses out roads like the B2031 then it's not going to sell very well, because it's a small country and that's what you're going to be driving on once you get off the trunk roads.

Here we track geography down to footpaths and bridleways, and yes, those are also considered notable. All public footpaths and bridleways are recorded in the UK. Every single public thoroughfare is recorded, and therefore intrinsically notable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia is not a road atlas. All title deeds are officially recorded in the U.S. Does that mean that every private house and plot of land is notable and should have an article? I don't think so. And I certianly don't think we ought to include articles on every bridle path in the UK, and by extension, everywhere else in the world. DES ^(talk) 02:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Title deeds are primary sources. If you used those to write an encyclopedia article about a private residence, it would fall under "original research" and be deleted. On the other hand, with highways, there are plenty of secondary sources that can be used to write an article on them. JYolkowski // talk 23:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • That's not what original research means. If I go to the county records and see that the state bought a road from the county on some date, that's not original research. Original research is drawing conclusions from that, such as the assumption that the state bought the road because of a bribe. --SPUI (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the assertion that the entry is "encyclopedic". An encyclopedia is not a grab-bag of data, it is data digested into information. Pilatus 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Regarding Tony Sidaway's thoughts, I too believe that long distance footpaths are notable, however, B roads are not. Some long distance footpaths are nationally maintained by National Trails, and are of interest to both tourists and ramblers, covering many areas of natural beauty. They aren't that numerous either. Most people in my local area would know of the Wolds Way, yet would probably not be able to point out the B1249 road. - Hahnchen 15:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - B roads are none notable. They are NOT the equivolent of state highways in the US, just as counties are not the equivolent of states. State highways would be A roads. B roads of historical importance should be kept, but most of these are named. - Hahnchen 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn scho^H^H^H^Hroads.  Grue  20:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable road. Passes the thousands of people test. Klonimus 09:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Designers Theory

160 google hits suggests a literal neologism. Article is in such poorshape its impossible to tell if it could have merit in the future. At best, should be merged with Intelligent Design Tznkai 16:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The theorist mentioned in the article seems somewhat notable. 230 google hits on exact phrase "Richard B. Hoppe" with term "wikipedia" filtered out. --goethean ॐ 16:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Marskell 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a commonly discussed concept (using this exact name, and the abbreviation of MDT) among those at the ARN forums (an ID website). Unsurprisingly, it is ignored by those who espouse Intelligent Design because it is counter to their creationist viewpoint. As such, it is something I am familiar with on a day-to-day basis. Whether it is applicable as an article on Wikipedia is perhaps more debateable. Its principal application is potentially in diagnosing multiple authors for documents (which may include programming code). From this it should be translatable into a useful tool for those interested in researching ID. Noisy | Talk 17:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Noisy. --goethean ॐ 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let me make this clear. This is not a theory as in scientific theory. No research into intelligent design creationism has ever been done, and nor will there be, because there is no evidence to support it. Now, if it were really about identifing authors of documents from their style of writing, I would consider. As it is, it's unreferenced pseudo-philosophical bollocks. Dunc|☺ 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Update - Noisy has rewritten the article, although a good summary, IMHO it just shows up its major deficiency - it is simply not notable. It is not recognised as science, philosophy or theology by those academic communites or found favour as a popular religious belief. The idea I think can be better discussed as a short sentence or two in intelligent designer. Dunc|☺ 15:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MDT is a clever approach to pointing out some of the flaws in ID, a combination of reductio ad absurdum and parody. However, I don't see that it deserves an article of its own in Wikipedia. It might deserve a mention in Intelligent Design, though. --Macrakis 22:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dunc. The comment about it being popular on a webforum is the strongest possible evidence of neologicity. -Splash 22:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Evil foul smelling pseudoscience without references | Celcius 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded the article (for what it's worth). Dunc and Splash fail to understand where MDT is coming from, so hopefully this will clarify. My defence of the topic still remains weak. Noisy | Talk 11:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RoseRush

Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. This is plainly all this article is. Not notable in any other way. TheDeletator 16:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, Delete. Moreover, the creator of the page removed the VfD tag... --Raistlin 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete His other articles were snake oil. Rose Hip Syrup this time!Dlyons493 18:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Badvertisment. Alf 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, adv | Celcius 21:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, like everything in the Lanz Chan vanity series. --IByte 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Paul Klenk 05:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ferecito

Delete, non-notable. A sketch on SNL done by an "actor" who doesn't have an article on him himself is not encyclopedic. Note also how poorly written and typo-ridden this is.TheDeletator 16:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'd say doesn't merit its own article at this time. Until it become a cultural phenomenon. --Etacar11 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This article breaks one of Dennis Hopper's rule in Search and Destroy. To paraphrase: "Just because you thought of it, doesn't make it interesting." Paul Klenk 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for above reasons. --Bhadani 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brother chinese restaurant

Not "famous," but an ordinary, non-notable small business like hundreds of other restaurants in the DC area. choster 16:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: google is unforgiving --Raistlin 16:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 18 Google hits on "Brother chinese restaurant". None of them seem to point to the one in the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Alf 19:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (Note: This VfD page was blanked today by the IP that created the page under discussion.) — Nowhither 22:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BioIntelligence Age

Neologism/original research/spam. - choster 16:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator Lullabye Muse 16:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a neologism to me. --IByte 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment isn't it a copyvio from here? I'm not hot on copyvios, so don't know. Alf 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I reckon so. Googling that definition at the bottom of the webpage produces only a single hit which is that page. I will tag it and bag it. -Splash 22:45, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Madden

Delete - recreation of previously deleted content. It might be a speedy, but I can't see the page history of the old version, so I wouldn't know. --Idont Havaname 16:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn --Raistlin 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's not the same as the original article. I would suggest, however, that if he's the third co-owner of a legitimately notable business with two legitimately notable people, by my measure that's enough to merit him at least a stub. Either keep or merge into an article about the clothing label. Bearcat 17:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable brother of two notable people. Being related to somebody famous does not make you famous. Doing business with somebody famous does not make you famous. Should I write an article on my non-notable brother-in-law, who is the first cousin of a famous rock star? Zoe 23:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Dysepsion 01:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Nkeep. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Bowl

This article was previously marked for speedy deletion, but I decided to post it here on VFD to get more opinions. This article is about a group of fans who organized a college football bowl game to entice the country's best football teams into playing to determine who is the real national champion. Of course, no school has accepted a Tom Bowl invite. I have cleaned up the article to erase the portions of what looked more like a press release. The only thing I can think of how this might be notable is that it has been written about by a few media sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as it has drawn at least a modicum of mainstream media coverage. I'd think an edit at the front to emphasize that the game is not and has never been played is in order, though. — Lomn | Talk 16:58:35, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
• Weak keep- this is interesting and informative, and barely meets notability requirements. I think it's encyclopedic.--Scimitar ^parley 23:23, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan m^2

• Delete. non-notable gaming group vanity. -Satori 16:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.. "non-notable" is irrelevant. Satori is non-notable, yet you have a page about yourself. - Miscreantik 00:26, 24 August 2005

Comment: Satori has a user page, not an article. Big distinction. — Lomn | Talk 16:47:11, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not notable, gaming cruft. jni 16:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a vanity entry. In addition, the titles of the members are downright offensive and hardly NPOV. If you were struggling with alcoholism, for example, would you want to read this page? --128.118.40.77 16:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. andy 16:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn --Raistlin 16:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-23 T 21:21:49 Z
• Delete. --80.222.69.104 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly non-notable gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opa

• Transwiki Dictionary definition bogdan | ^Talk 16:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Alf 21:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after merging it with previously deleted Opa! or Transwiki. Comment I would also need to point that Category:Vocabulary_and_usage_stubs are candidate to be moved to Wiktionary. We don't have to delete other's people work, when we can move it to the right place. The Wikipedia project has great potentials, and I believe we should try to achieve them.MATIA 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment After Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Opa!, information that I've added on Opa! is lost. Hopefully it'll be added here by User:Redwolf24, so that opa can be kept or transwikified the right way. I must remind you 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.

MATIA 14:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, unless, as MATIA suggests above, this article can be beefed up to be encyclopedic. Right now, this article is almost archetypally a dictionary entry. – Friejose 17:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

        TOPIC CLOSED-UNONYM DELETED UNTIL VALID SOURCES FOUND