Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 29

< August 28	August 30 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RENNtech

Non-notable company. It's local to Lake Park, Florida, according to the web site. dbenbenn | talk 00:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as noted above. --KJPurscell 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep after rewrite. Jaxl | talk 02:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete but only because it's poorly executed. "local to x" means almost nothing with regard to notability. it could be a world-renowned local facility. and yes, pages aren't supposed to be deleted because they're poorly written. that's bunk, and one of the reasons so many horrible pages are created here. SaltyPig 02:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Keep, considering improvements. still needs work though. SaltyPig 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite - notable and major automotive tuner - just because they're "local" (which means they only have one facility) doesn't mean their tuned Benzes aren't reviewed in every major car mag out there. 16,700 Googles. FCYTravis 08:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The company has been around for a while and their models haven been reviewed in a fair number of car magazines. Pilatus 11:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Dottore So 12:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable tuner, has been covered in major automotive press. Friday (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep field-leading company. — mendel ☎ 20:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems notable in the world of gearboxes. Klonimus 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable company. Jachin 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that notability doesn't require a huge amount of publiticy in the general press. I haven't personally verified the above claims, but I don't doubt them either... --Daedalus-Prime 23:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've added links (found easily with a quick google) to support the assertions of being covered in major auto magazines. These guys aren't just your corner hotrod shop; they charge big money for their tuned Benzes, and the biggest magazines in the business have written about their products. If those who voted delete are still watching and would care to reconsider, I think we could safely remove this from VfD as being a definite keeper. Friday (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Coverage in major auto magazines. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Green Foudation

As near as I can tell, this is an Animal Crossing clan. The forum they're advertising has 11 members. —Cryptic (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete They didn't even bother to spell Foundation correctly! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete --KJPurscell 01:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
They are actually an Animal Crossing DS clan... a game that hasn't even been released yet! Delete! Thatdog 01:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jaxl | talk 02:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The section "about us" makes it sound like they're spreading propaganda. Olleicua 02:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Good grief. Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:13:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable advertising. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Need I really post a reason for this one? Jachin 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete ditto as per above Roodog2k 00:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP the rewrite. The copyvio aspect has already been dealth with. -Splash 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phenomenauts

~~Bandcruft, improperly linked external pictures. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep. Actually, these guys have been on Warped Tour twice, according to their article, which meets WP:MUSIC critera for inclusion. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: AMG has an entry on them. [1] I'd vote to keep on that basis, but unfortunately its a copyvio in its current state. I've tagged and reported it. Jaxl | talk 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not heard of it myself but looking at evidence it's certainly wikiworthy. The article should be expanded upon and made to a better quality, though.--195.92.168.173 02:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't think they meet the criteria to delete. Trollderella 07:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. Would support a legitimate article on this band as they meet WP:music. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 21:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I rewrote it and added some content. It meets WP:MUSIC at this point I think it's ok... Rx StrangeLove 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Rewritten on temp subpage. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite, but delete the original to get rid of the copyvio. the wub "?/!" 08:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zolo Music

Possible copyright violation. Cannot verify this, so wondering if this article can be removed through a vfd instead. Has been outstanding since Aug. 3rd 2005. HappyCamper 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, but delete. Alr 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; 123 googles. Jaxl | talk 02:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 13:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bizzare nonsense. the wub "?/!" 08:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted this as a copyvio, while going through the backlog. There's just no way that it isn't one, and no one's raised any objections to it for the near-month it's been listed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F'sho

Mispronunciation of "for sure". That's it. Denni ☯ 01:37, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Delete, F'sho. Not encyclopedic. -- DS1953 01:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 02:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems like it aught to be in a page on slang, perhaps a redirect? Olleicua 02:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. Alr 02:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 04:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Fernando Rizo.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:12:41, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Keep, legitimate entry. jamesgibbon 11:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Move to Wiktionary --Quasipalm 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fo' rizzle. ral 315 17:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It is not a mispronunciation, it is a variant pronunciation. Kappa 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per Fernando Rizo. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per Fernando Rizo. --Sebastian Kessel 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, may be suitable for Wiktionary. the wub "?/!" 08:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete CalJW 22:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
delete Roodog2k 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conquering Chemistry

Please don't tell me that textbooks are the next inherently notable thing. Denni ☯ 01:43, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I don't know. We'll have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis for now. But this one is definately not notable, so delete. Alr 02:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. 91 googles. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:54:36, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
- Well, Amazon's heard of at least the first two. -Splash 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure I follow, Splash.—Encephalon | ^ζ 08:10:51, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
Delete Dottore So 13:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nothing is notable here. --Bhadani 15:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete most books by themselves are not-notable. If the author had an article, and that was kept, this could be mentioned there. -Splash 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep published by McGraw-Hill, Sydney, 2000. This passes the thousands of people test. WP aint paper. Klonimus 21:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sure there are a lot of australian students out there who use this textbook, and would therefore be interested in reading about it ...which is enough for me.-Wandering oojah 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment If this does get deleted then Feuerwerk and Excel study guides ought to be considered as well. Caerwine 08:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
weak delete Not sure about this... seems that a published book is notable when a certain number are printed Roodog2k 00:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable textbook. Claims of being most popular not sourced. Quale 16:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 11:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Long Pool

Subject is a non-notable community swimming pool. Sounds like a neat place to work from the in-depth staff bios, but sadly not encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Alr 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as tripe. SaltyPig 02:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Joelito 03:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- DS1953 04:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Fernando Rizo—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:15:20, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 13:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem notable to me. I did attempt to find the copyvio when it was created. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn - Jobe 6 21:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Signing a Wikipedian article, let alone with '666' is just lame. Jachin 21:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsamaidis

Short article on a surname, no notable examples given, nothing of note to be found on the web. See Talk:Tsamaidis for a note I have placed there. BillC 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Pburka 03:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. Cnwb 04:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 13:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete As per above... Roodog2k 00:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 11:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gleneagle Secondary School

~~Orphan~~School with ~~virtually no~~ little possibility of growing beyond what it is now. ~~Delete.~~ Alr 02:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Weak keep. This whole schools thing is just rediculous, IMHO. Alr 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are in BIIIIG trouble, AlR - here they come! Denni ☯ 02:33, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

What did I do? This one, unlike most, is an orphan. Alr 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's been a lot of previous debate over schools (see Wikipedia:Schools). Many have been VfD'd in the past, but most were kept. Jaxl | talk 03:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the problem with schools. If someone de-orphaned the article, I might be enclined to change my vote. Alr 03:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd place it in a sub-list in List of schools in Canada myself, but it only has a list for schools starting with "A". Maybe just place it in the main list for now? Jaxl | talk 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been listed alongside another school in the same district, School district 43, British Columbia. Wikipedia is slowly but surely expanding its schools coverage and sometimes you can see the dots join up like this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep all high schools. Pburka 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 01:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, etc., etc... -- DS1953 04:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but 10 days ain't bad. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Denni ☯ 05:21, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Clear delete. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete--Encephalon | ^ζ 07:09:02, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Keep, no longer an orphan. Kappa 07:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Deleting a school? Trollderella 07:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Pilatus 08:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Four walls and a roof is not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimnate collection of information. Proto t c 11:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Proto is quite right. jamesgibbon 11:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Proto, above. Delete. Dottore So 13:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete how very dull. Dunc|☺ 13:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I thought we'd got over this nonsense.Osomec 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. Jaxl | talk 14:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:Schools Arguments to Delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. You want to delete a school for orphans. Man! Have you no heart? Sdedeo 16:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- You read wrong. It's just a standard public school - but the page was an orphan. I probably should have made that more clear. Alr 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If we keep articles on schools, next people will be writing articles on roads and rocks. Oh, wait... Gamaliel 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. This box-of-students at least won a competition for being environmentally friendly, and I can't, offhand, think of many that have. -Splash 18:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep All public orgs are entitled to an entry, especially if they have distinguished themselves in some way - however minor. Shropshire Lad 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Soltak. His views are quite well-written, by the way; I encourage all users to read them. --Idont Havaname 19:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge to a sensible topic (such as Schools in British Columbia - they're all the same, any minor differences can be mentioned as EXAMPLES. ) Does not warrant own article. (Note to closer do not count as keep.) --TimPope 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as usual.--Scimitar ^parley 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools are notable Guerberj 19:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Some schools are noteable, most High Schools are not. This one isn't. --Outlander 20:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is the first school deletion listing in eleven days. I was beginning to worry. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep WP is not Jenga, all school's are notable each and every one. Klonimus 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Jachin 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment for those who came in late, statistics on school article deletion listings since May 1: Nominated: 164; deleted: 4; pending: 1 6. There may be slight differences with other people's tallies depending on how you define a "school" article, but this is for those articles which were placed on the Schoolwatch page and logged in the archives. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- And the point of this comment is what? Denni ☯ 02:17, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
- To convince those attempting to persuade Wikipedia to delete school articles that they could spend their efforts more profitably on something more worthwhile--such as building an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Then it might have been a better idea to say just that. As it stands, it might be construed as a lecture for being naughty for suggesting such a delete, an attempt to subtly intimidate, or a little bit of the old na na na na boo boo <thumbs nose>. You should know that in VfD it is of especial importance to say what you mean. More to the point, what is it about suggesting the deletion of yetanother same old same old school that makes one =not= building an encyclopedia. Some of us see it as important that each entry should be judged on its own merits and should possess some degree of notability, not knee-jerked in because, oh, it's another school/mall/road/whatever. Denni ☯ 01:53, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
  - I suppose my comment could be interpreted as an attempt to dissect the Gettysburg address, but I don't take that suggestion any more seriously than I take the suggestion that it can be read as an attempt to lecture anyone for being naughty (it's addressed at those who don't know the history), and I can only regard with extreme skepticism the idea that giving accurate, neutral factual information can legitimately be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate. It sounds like sour grapes. This article will be kept, most likely with a majority against deletion. This will not be an extraordinary occurrence. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted this change by User:TimPope. Feel free to disagree. —RaD Man (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  - It could/should be pointed out that the vast majority of the 'keep' votes Tony cites above were actually 'no consensus' votes. Proto t c 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Absolutely. But what they were not was deletions. We don't delete articles unless there is a consensus to delete them. Actually the discussion on this school article seems to be running with a slight majority for keep, which demonstrates how difficult it is to persuade Wikipipedia to delete school articles. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but it needs some work. Mindmatrix 01:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Highschools are notable for the most part.Gateman1997 01:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. More of the drive to drown Wikipedia in worthless trivia. --Calton | Talk 02:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Why would anyone want to "drown wikipedia in useless trivia"? Kappa 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable. Sunray 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
D. NN. R adiant _>|< 08:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Easy, obvious, and clear. Only reason for removal is if one wishes to delete most articles on high schools. School articles give worthwhile information about the education system, that is not provided elsewhere. --rob 09:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see no reason to delete it. --Andylkl ^(talk) 10:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete seems to be full of dull padding to make it into an article.--KURANDO 12:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, other than there being little informaion at present, what reason or deletion is there? There is wide scope for additions by someone who knows more about the school. Evil Eye 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
keep please evil eye is right anyways Yuckfoo 16:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is a school. And here I had thought we were past this and the deletionists had given up and gone home. --Nicodemus75 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep The number of school articles is well into four figures. Picking on one is pointless. CalJW 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Following that logic, there are so many murderers in the world holding a long drawn-out trial just for one just doesn't seem fair. Soltak | Talk 22:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  - That's right kids, secondary schools are just as evil as cold blooded murderers. —RaD Man (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
weak keep Roodog2k 00:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing to see here, move along. CDThieme 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 21:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep this good faith addition of good content from a welcome Wikipedia editor. Schools are notable enough topics for articles. Un focused 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
keep, borderline notability. 24 at 19:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable secondary school. Quale 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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 was delete. Sango 123 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people widely considered eccentric

This list is unmaintanable, inherently POV, inherently unverifiable, mostly unsourced and has been constantly metastasizing since its inception. It is less of an encyclopedia article and more of a sort of stream-of-consciousness laundry list of names of people that any editor has ever personally considered to be strange. It's an eyesore. The result of the previous AfD was "no consensus". Nandesuka 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete inherently POV, perpetually incomplete, totally indiscriminate, and absolutely useless. How this has survived so long is a boggle. Opabinia regalis 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete inherently POV and for a large part original research. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. -AED 04:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per all of the above. -- Kjkolb 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. POV is inscribed in the very title. Daniel Case 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete List is unmaintanable and original research. --Ageo020 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Defining normalcy by shining a light on those unconforming to the 'rules' does not belong on Wikipedia. Throw 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete as entirely original research and inherently POV. Molerat 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. All of the previous keep votes failed to address how the people on the list are verifiable. --ColourBurst 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete "widely considered" is a POV term in and of itself. Konman72 09:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, originally researched indiscriminate POV list with no hope of ever being complete. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, strong POV list, original research, and unencyclopedic in nature. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per precedent. Nominating articles for deletion over and over and over again, until the single result acceptable to those who want it deleted is achieved, becomes monotonous. At some point the lack of consensus that the article should be deleted ought to be recognized and the matter ended. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Despite all the previous AfDs, precedents are not binding, and the last AfD was almost a year ago. This is a perfectly valid AfD nomination. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this is pure original research because it at the very heart based upon an admittedly arbitrary criteria. Lists based on arbitrary criteria, particularly criteria determined by Wikipedia contributors, need to go. Beyond that, there is the long standing lack verifiability around this list.--Isotope23 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per - by now - just about everyone. Sandstein 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My preference is Delete. If kept, move all the unsourced entries to the article's Talk page—which at this point is all of them, effectively blanking the article. State at the top of the article that entries are to be inserted only if accompanied by source citations, meeting reliable source guidelines, which describe the person as "eccentric," using that word. The list then becomes a list of people who have been called eccentric, with source citations showing who called them that. Ideally enough of the source should be quoted so the reader can judge whether the person meets the reader's own criterion for eccentricity. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment, and if this is done it should be moved to List of people who have been referred to as eccentric.--Isotope23 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. --Satori Son 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete OR, POV, and no slightest definition of what eccentric even means. Half the people on this list, I have no idea what's supposed to be eccentric about them. Fan-1967 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete, and please, please, please delete most other "considered" lists along with it, like Place names considered unusual, Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever, List of video games considered the worst ever, List of jokes considered clichés, and List of incidents famously considered great blunders. wikipediatrix 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Changed vote, explanation follows.--T. Anthony 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- And not: David Koresh and Charles Manson and Jesus of Nazareth? One man's eccentric is another's messiah. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  - This either shows a disdain for religion or a lack of understanding of history. Either way the people you name are not self-described eccentrics nor did they get famous because they're eccentric. Koresh got famous as a cult leader, Manson for crimes, and Jesus as a religious leader/thinker. I know that Joshua A. Norton is seen as some kind of religious something to Discordians, but he did not see himself as any kind of religious anything as far as I know. Also it's unclear if Discordianism is an actual religion.--T. Anthony 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Is this a list of self-described eccentrics we're debating? I don't think so. These aren't people who got famous for being eccentric either. That's not what's going on here. History is in the eye of the beholder, too, when such soft labels as "eccentric" are thrown around. Some guy who calls himself the son of God and runs around in the desert with 12 men, eschews sex, but hangs out with prostitutes, seems eccentric by most standards (and if you disagree, that just proves the point that there is no subjective criteria for inclusion). Carlossuarez46 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      - I'm saying this list could be made into a list of self-described eccentrics and people who got famous for eccentricity. It'd take radical culling, but it's not impossible.--T. Anthony 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        
        On second thought after doing a bit of work I realized fixing this list is way too difficult as it has too much dross. It would be more work to fix it than to just start a better eccentric list at List of people who have been referred to as eccentric.--T. Anthony 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete as unverified, unverifiable, unsourced, potentially libellous, against WP:BIO, ill-defined, unencyclopedic, non-notable, original research, POV listcruft. Vizjim 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete as inherently POV. Too bad; some of these are fascinating, but rules are rules. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator this list is far too subjective for Wikipedia standards. Yamaguchi先生 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete — WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of complicating matters: it is, however, easy to create an objective criterion: "people described as 'eccentric' by a source meeting WP:RS". Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete A legitimate list on this topic could exist, but creating such a list (per, e.g., Dpbsmith's suggested approach) would involve melting this one down to its component bits and casting it wholly anew. I agree with Coredesat about the previous V/AfDs: they were a long time ago, they are not binding and, moreover, if they prove anything it's that Eventualism just hasn't worked out here. Anville 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Vizjim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV, no solid criteria for inclusion. --Scienceman123 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Such a list may be publishable, but not in an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, should not have been relisted. R adiant _>|< 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Day of my Capture

Not notable web page (alexa: rank 1,599,879). Nothing links to this page (google search), promotion. feydey 16:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Could someone please explain that because It's not a popular webpage, the article should be deleted? and I don't understand how I am being vain, If I had stated eg.The best show in the world, nothing is better.etc, I would consider that as vain.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Please note that Wikipedia is not a directory of website and consider reading WP:VAIN. Since nothing links to the site according to google, and Alexa seems to indicate it doesn't get much visitors, we need more evidence to show that this site is actually popular. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - It does not get many visitors but It's an article about the program, Not the website. This is an encyclopedia of everything, And this is a program.P.S: The website was put there to show that the show exists. You can remove the link if you wish.--Tutacanaras 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Hi there. It is a common misconception that WP is "an encyclopedia of everything." This isn't true. WP is a free encyclopedia that is being written as a wiki, but it does not accept every possible contribution. You might like to look at some of the policies and guidelines that govern the acceptability of articles. If you're looking for a place that will accept articles on nearly everything, try Everything2.com.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:03:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

relisting for more discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

- - Comment: Many newbies seem to be confused by accusations of vanity. I understand that Wikipedia uses a special, non-common definition for the term. In Wikipedia, "vanity" means that the article was created by its subject, a friend of the subject, or a member of the subject (in case of organisations) but no one else knows or cares about it. It does not necessarily mean that the article praises the subject. In fact, an article insulting its subject might still be vanity. I propose some sort of explanatory page about the term vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 03:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable / vanity / advertising. Cnwb 04:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Its not an encyclopedia of everything. nn. -- DS1953 04:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:02:46, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 contents and redirect. Woohookitty 11:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sos

Not encyclopedic, no discernable subject, never even explains who or what "sos" is, and follows with some of the most disjointed, incomprehensible gibberish I have ever seen. Section headers are incomprehensible, even after reading the text under them. Gene Nygaard 03:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as nonsense. Alr 03:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to SOS (Save our souls), do not merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Compare to cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliare (vfd'd here). Redirect to SOS afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Andrew pmk. Jaxl | talk 04:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. 23skidoo 05:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. -- Egil 13:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. -- Alf 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to SOS. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Jachin 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Why, why, why redirect to SOS? They are not in the slighest bit related. Speedy delete this please. Moriori 22:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The reason I suggest the redirect is because some people are lazy typers and will get no results if they enter "sos" in lowercase. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Since this content is o.r., onya redirect should be left. -- (drini|☕) 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense and redirect as above. I can't make heads or tails of it. --Carnildo 03:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to SOS, no merging of patent nonsense. --Andylkl ^(talk) 10:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
DELETE fails Turing test. ;) Roodog2k 00:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense. Then create a fresh redirect under "sos" to SOS. CDThieme 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to Gungan/Basic pidgin

Delete. Part fancruft, part original research. Short list of "translations" from Jar Jar-speak into English. android 79 03:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird. I wonder what the Gungan word for delete is... Alr 03:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cleanup and rename - it could at least be used to contrast the differences between Klingon and Gungan, and would tie in well with other Star Wars languages.--inks 04:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- No. No comparisons, for God's sake. Delete. --Apostrophe 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Languages in Star Wars if possible, otherwise delete. This looks like something that would belong in Wikibooks, anyway. Jaxl | talk 04:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft and/or original research. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a dictionary. Even of real languages.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:23:03, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete this isn't about the language, but lists translated words (aka Wikipedia is not a dictionary). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --tranquileye 11:42:18, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete Agree w/Encephalon. Dottore So 13:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Encephalon. Also, because this stupid creature annoys me.--Scimitar ^parley 15:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - fancruft, original research, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or phrasebook. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macellarius

If it is so secret, how can it be verifiable? Delete unless a better source than "rumor" is cited and confirmed. DES ^(talk) 04:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless source can be found. Right now, they only other mention of this on google is the Wikipedia page for secret society LadyClaudius 04:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-verifiable. Cnwb 04:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per DES.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:44:36, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable rumors. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete after looking round a couple of times and whispering, "psst", just in case. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Madlove conspiracy theorists. Freemasons run the country. Jachin 22:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unlikely to be expanded. Amren ^(talk) 23:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, rumors are not sources. Zoe 07:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, verifiability, TINC. Barno 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is running out of server space. Manko 19:54, 05 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malarky

Slang term of UK (?) origin. Eddie.willers 04:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Already in Wiktionary, at the alternate (and more common) spelling malarkey. —Cryptic (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per above. Cnwb 04:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Cryptic.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:45:29, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete, Wiktionary duplicate with tone problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Incidentally, yes, the phrase is of UK origin. And the definition given is wrong. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Jernehed

Doesn't seem to be of particular note outside Scandinavia. He's just 17 - how noteworthy can a soccer player be at that age? Eddie.willers 04:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Only gets 12 Google hits. Non-notable. Cnwb 04:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, he can be. But he's not. Del.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:46:27, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Weak delete. I'm not sure how notable 3rd division football is Sweden, but the Swedish Wikipedia don't have an article on him either, and it's awfully vanity like. Note: He doesn't need to be noteworthy outside Scandinavia, as long as he's well-known in Sweden. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The 3rd division is the fourth level down. See Swedish football league system. Uppland 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That far down the list, you're nn. -Splash 18:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. Fred-Chess 15:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, very not notable... -- Elisson • Talk 16:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 22:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City Metropolitan Airport

I have thought long & hard about this one.

Firstly, the airport's name and IATA code are wrong. I believe the author is talking about the 'Benito Juarez International Airport', IATA code: MEX.
Secondly, MEX is not in the Top 10 of world's busiest airports and certainly NOT the busiest in Latin America (that honour belongs to Juan Santamaria in Costa Rica).
Thirdly, there is no information other than a list of airlines and destinations allegedly operating from the airport. Both lists are incomplete, inaccurate and inconsistent. There are no verifiable sources given.
And, finally, yes..I do live in Mexico. Eddie.willers 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Far lesser airports have articles on them (see Saskatoon International Airport). Lack of information is not justification for VFD -- be bold and expand it. 23skidoo 05:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Did you even read what he said or look at the page in question? There's no such thing as "Mexico City Metropolitan Airport". This article is garbage. Alr 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How bizarre; this looks like a completely made-up major international airport with many of the same airlines and flights as Benito_Juarez_International_Airport, but a completely new list of terminals, etc. "MJX" (given in the text) appears to be the IATA code for Robert J. Miller Air Park, Toms River, New Jersey. Nothing useful to merge; no point in redirecting a made-up name. Benito Juarez is, of course, extremely notable. Bikeable 05:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Redirect to Benito Juarez International Airport. Alr 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Alr, you have two votes on the page, both at 0535.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:50:23, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Delete. "Mexico City Metropolitan Airport" gets all of two hits on Google, so no redirect is necessary. Thatdog 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Redirect to Benito Juarez International Airport. Delete Alr 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Eddie.willers.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:50:23, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Vote changed to delete after Encephalon pointed out my brain-cramp. Trollderella, there appears to be a good reason for the google count: the airport apparently does not exist.—Encephalon | ^ζ 08:00:11, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

You, are, on looking more closely, quite correct. This should be deleted. The facts about it are mostly relating to Benito Juárez International Airport. Trollderella 08:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, hoax. Proto t c 11:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hoax indeed. Dottore So 13:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete has the hallmarks of a hoax. -Splash 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
HOATX Klonimus 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But I would consider a redirect from Mexico City International Airport to Benito Juárez International Airport as appropriate, since some non-Mexicans might not know about Benito Juárez. --Tito xd 23:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - same reasons as Encephalon & Trollderella Wangi 14:19:00, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll tag it for {{{expansion}}} and move it.-Splash 00:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chateau st michelle

Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 05:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Google reveals that this is Washington State's oldest winery, and is thus notable. It is also a concert venue, having played host to Crosby Stills and Nash, Tori Amos, and Robert Plant. Hardly a non-notable / vanity page. Cnwb 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to "Chateau St. Michelle" and expand. Alr 05:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Move and expand as per Alr. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Move and expand as per Alr. I'll put this on my list to look in on; I have some family connections to the land the winery is built on, and might have some history. MCB 06:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, move, and expand. Trollderella 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, move and expand. Nice safe, Cnwb. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Move Keep and expand. I just wanted to say what everyone else was saying in a different fashion to express my uniqueness. Uh. :P Jachin 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep/Move — They are quite notable and produce a fine variety of wines. Winner of multiple awards for best winery as well as specific wines. A number of their wines have been up in the high 90's in Wine Enthusiast magazine. However the correct name is: "Chateau Ste. Michelle". — RJH 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unholy Death

Delete nn band. Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, no allmusic, 8 google hits for "unholy death" "Tim Schlicht". TheMidnighters 05:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As per nom. Cnwb 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per TheMidnighters—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:52:18, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another non-notable band, honestly, Wikipedia won't make a band more popular -_- Amren ^(talk) 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I Beg to differ: The band has broken up, so which would mean that the band's google prescense or ALLMusic wouldn't have anything to show. User:MrThomas

Bands that disbanded before Allmusic's creation are still documented (they go as far back as the 1920's), and you must agree that many bands which did not exist before Google still manage to produce hundreds/thousands of hits. Regardless, they still don't meet WP:MUSIC. Sorry, it's just a standard that needs to be maintained. --TheMidnighters 03:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion (and has also been closed as "speedy keep"). Uncle G 12:29:09, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Physical culture. The debate is slightly unclear, but it appears the capitalization issue was only discovered toward the end. Given Capitalistroadster's addition to the lower-cased version, and the weakness of the content as it stands, I'll redirect it. -Splash 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Culture

The Bjelke-Petersen School of Physical Culture has 180 clubs in Eastern Australia. Does this make it notable or is it just advertising? Note. The text is a direct copyvio from the school's website but since it was probably they who posted it, I think we should deal with the notability first. -- RHaworth 06:42:48, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Comment. I would vote keep for it but note that it needs a significant cleanup. This is a non-profit organisation with a reasonable following and 180 clubs in Eastern Australia is a significant number of clubs. Hans Christian Bjelke-Peterson (not Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) was the founder of the organisation [2] and he has an interesting background in anthropometric studies see the link. However, I am of the view that copyvios should be deleted even if the organisation has no problems with them staying. This is because material coped from the web is usually not POV nor does it usually present the information in an encylopedic way. This should be deleted as a copyvio. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on this that isn't a copyvio, I would welcome it. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable. It needs cleanup not deletion, so I have marked it as such. Osomec 13:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep this is a notable subject, related to the physcial fitness fads of the 1920-1960 period when "physical culture" was thought to be important. I.e Betar etc. Also the role of "physical culture" magazines as sources of gay erotica. Notable social phenominon. Klonimus 22:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It took me a while of sitting and thinking before I recalled that almost every young female I went to school with went to this thing called 'fizzy'. It's a significant part of the youth of most Australian female's in Sydney especially. Jachin 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reason given by Klonimus and others as well. Physical Culture was also, IIRC, the name of a quite well-known magazine, possibly edited by Bernarr Macfadden??? Good grief, do we really not have an article about Bernarr Macfadden? Apparently not... here's a website about him, ah, "Father of Physical Culture," another entry for the List of people known as the father or mother of something. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC) All observations apply, but change vote to redirect, see below. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Damn case-sensitivity... we have an little stub on Physical culture. Just a stub, though. But look! it mentions Bernarr Macfadden.
Redirect to Physical culture. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect sounds good to me. Capitalistroadster 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Note. I have added a paragraph about the Australian version of physical culture to the "Physical culture" article. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Andrew McMahon. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew mcmahon

~~Lead singer in a non-notable band. Possible vanity article. Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Vote changed to keep and cleanup based on User:Halo's and User:Capitalistroadster's comments. — JIP | Talk 09:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~

Vote changed again to redirect as per User:Halo. — JIP | Talk 10:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Generic message to justify deletion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 07:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Valhallia 07:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep but the article need cleaning up somewhat. Definitely _not_ vanity, the band is very well known. Notable member of a notable band, who is also suffering from a notable illness. There are 14,700 Google hits for his name, and almost 400,000 for his band Something Corporate. Absolutely no idea why the page has been VFD'd. Halo 09:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Having rewrote the article, turns we already have a better one at Andrew McMahon. Vote changed to Redirect - Halo 10:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Lead singer with a well-known band within the US. MTV News reports that he has been diagnosed with leukemia and that his side project Mannequin was preparing to release an album. This arguably makes him notable beyond Something Corporate see MTV News Article. [3] Redirect per Halo. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Please don't nominate to VfD any obviously wrongly-titled page. Move first. Then backlinks are picked up, or, as in this case, an actual page into which to merge. Nominating without moving first wastes time. Charles Matthews 10:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- At the time I nominated the article, I had never heard of McMahon, so I thought this was the first article created about him. — JIP | Talk 10:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Just redirect and be done with it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- REDIRECTED. If someone feels a redirect in the middle of a VfD is a horrible faux pas, they can revert the change. — JIP | Talk 11:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - It is generally a bad idea since in some cases it can mess things up considerably. This time, however, it is sensible enough, although I don't see the rush. -Splash 18:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bertel king

Obvious vanity page. Probably some teenage kid writing ShareWare games out of his bedroom. Just like I used to do. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - shows no sign of notability in that article. gren グレン 07:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity Page --Botsie 08:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if the article fails to even give the names of the games, it's pretty much an A1 (no context) speedy anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Groeck 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monday Montana

I don't believe this is a real sporting term. The article reads like a personal attack. Delete unless verified. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Alan Au 09:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete even if verified, it's just a dicdef at best (being kind). Although, somehow I doubt a Rugby term would be named after a football player. It seems inevitble that an article named for an insult, would cite examples of people who "qualify" for the insult. --rob 11:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. -Mariano 11:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nom. Cnwb 00:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. See talk page for commentary on rationale. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Schools in Oregon

Page was created by new editor, whose only other page edit was to the Willamette Ballet Academy. At best, move to List of Dance Schools in Oregon, but I was under the impression that WP:NOT a directory. --Alan Au 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it's good behavior to create horizontal links between related topics. Kappa 08:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, move to List of Dance Schools in Oregon. Newager 10:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, move to List of Dance Schools in Oregon. Notable subject. Klonimus 22:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete schools are bad enough, but dance schools?!?!?! not notable. Dunc|☺ 12:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. The policy being cited is: Wikipedia articles are not "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- ~~How does that apply? Kappa 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~
  - ~~It didn't. Sorry. I've now edited my remark and it now cites the policy that applies. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete --Quasipalm 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, Dpbsmith. Dottore So 17:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but not as a list, write something on, erm, dance schools in Oregon! Trollderella 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete this doesn't serve a useful purpose. I'd say categorify, but 4 articles doesn't justify a category either. -Splash 19:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. I'd also point out to Trollderella that VFD isn't a suggestion box. To whom, exactly, are you directing your order to expand, rewrite, and otherwise completely overhaul this article? Soltak | Talk 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested in writing or improving articles. I guess there are not very many of those hanging out at vfd? Trollderella 19:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not about dance schools in Oregon, at least I'm not. If you think it's worthy of being altered in the way you outlined than alter it, you'd likely also change some votes. Otherwise, please just vote on the article as it stands not on what you hope the article might someday become. If the time arrives that someone is knowledgeable enough to write a comprehensive article on dance schools in Oregon, they would have my happy support in doing so. Until then, this is a meaningless directory. Soltak |

Talk 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What an incredibly bitchy thing to say. Who the fuck are you to tell this person what they can and can't say? Fuck off and get a life!

In general, if an article appears to have potential, it should be kept. Most wikipedia articles start off as stubs and such, and people wander in off the internet to fix them. Sdedeo 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with stubs, if written correctly they're great. The problem is this article isn't a stub, it's a list of links. While the possibility might exist for an actual article to be written on dance schools in Oregon, this isn't it. I can start an article about my non-notable local councilman because, potentially, he could become a senator. Potential isn't the issue. Soltak | Talk 21:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm sorry you find my aspirations for this article inapropriate. Trollderella 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Just a list of links. ManoaChild 20:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm Prefectures of Chad appears to be little more than a list of links, although it does have a nice map. Do you think that should be deleted too? Kappa 21:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - I know the question wasn't directed at me but I'm going to jump in anyway: Prefectures of Chad is a list, but it's a notable and encyclopedic one. Dance Schools in Oregon is nothing more than an incomplete directory. If you can quickly find the information in the yellow pages, it's not encyclopedic. Hardware Stores in Milwaukee and Plumbers in Little Rock don't exist for that reason. Soltak | Talk 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't believe we have any articles about hardware stores in Milwaukee, correct me if I'm wrong. Kappa 21:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      - "Hardware Stores in Milwaukee and Plumbers in Little Rock don't exist for that reason." I believe that was exactly my point. Soltak | Talk 21:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        OK I'm confused. Kappa 22:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        My point was that as those things don't exist, neither should Dance Schools in Oregon. I was arguing the fact that if one can find the information in the yellow pages, it shouldn't have an article. Soltak | Talk 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Prefectures of Chad is basically an addendum to the article on Chad, and is thus worthwhile. No reasonable comparison is possible. ManoaChild 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Groeck 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, web or otherwise. --23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned by Carnildo)
Delete. This ain't Yahoo! or the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 02:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bad precedent to keep this. We'd then have all sorts of business listings for every location in the world. Zoe 07:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per nominator's WP:NOT argument. —RaD Man (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- So you're saying we should keep this because Wikipedia policy is not to keep it? Zoe 08:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - Familiarize yourself with what WP:NOT is. —RaD Man (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    - I am completely familiar with what NOT says, thank you very much, and I would appreciate it if you would explain your vote. I see no reason to be uncivil. Zoe 20:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
      - My guess is that he's referring to WP:NOT paper (but nomination refers to WP:NOT directory). --Alan Au 05:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Gamaliel 08:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pointlessly unencyclopedic.Gateman1997 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If wikipedia isn't a place for lists, then why has this page been allowed to remain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planets_in_Futurama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.11.62 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 31 August 2005
- 1-That's not advertising. 2-That's pop culture, not advertising. 3-Because one article exists does not require that other articles have to exist. Zoe 05:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

- So inconsistency in policy and governing of Wikipedia is fine by you? This list of dance schools in Oregon is not advertising, as it doesn't contain any contact information about the listed schools, nor mentions anything about the schools other than the fact that they are in Oregon. All this page does is link to pages within the Wikipedia database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.10 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 September 2005
  - If you think that similar articles shouldn't be here, then by all means list them for deletion, but please peruse WP:POINT. Zoe 18:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    - Inconsistency is fine by me. Whenever there is no perfectly "bright line" and decisions must be made by human judgement, there will be inconsistency whenever things fall close to the borderline. If a cop stops you for speeding it is not usually helpful to tell the judge that there were other drivers going faster. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      - But then we're not in a court of law talking about a speeding ticket, are we? No. We're on wikipedia talking about the fact that this is all subjective and up to the whims of a clique of wikipedia editors who for some strange reason think the list of fictional planets on Futurama are more deserving of mention than the very real dance schools in the very real state of Oregon. Trekkie convention, anyone? And on the topic of speeding tickets: if it can be proven that the police officer was indeed singling a person out it is actually feasible that charges could be dropped. This sort of thing happens all the time. Maybe someone can make a list for you about the times it has happened, and then you can request the list be deleted as it relates to something in the real world and not a cartoon, hence it is not substantial enough for you.
- I apologize for wikipedia being inconsistent and wasting your time. Kappa 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. To the anon commenter(s): did you mean to vote "Keep/Rename" then? We could debate the merits of consistency indefinitely, but this really isn't the place for that discussion. --Alan Au 05:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FlexCast

Delete. nn software, advertising, vanity MCB 08:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, also seems to be at least a partial copyvio from link given. Bovlb 08:22:41, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
- Comment, redacted so it's no longer a direct copy-and-paste. PS. No I didn't do the original one. 69.142.2.68 08:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN, advertising.--inks 08:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 17:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete totally useless, adverstising. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Cnwb 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedily deleted. Attack page. --03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilsan tjiawi

The article claims that he starred in more than 100 movies. No movie-related Google hits though. It seems that this page is a joke. Sietse 09:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - NN, I even tried variations of Wilsan/Wilson/Willson just in case :) --inks 09:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - NN. --Bhadani 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete probably a hoax. Dottore So 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sounds like a hoax. Anyone put the permutations through IMDB? Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No relevant Google hits. Cnwb 00:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hell yeah, let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.5.236 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 31 August 2005 UTC
Delete. It's a hoax created by naughty people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.5.236 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 31 August 2005 UTC

- Both the above comments were by 155.69.5.236 (talk · contribs), who created the article in the first place. --khaosworks (talk •
Delete. Hell yeah, let's delete it.

contribs) 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Delete it already. same IP doesnt mean same person. either internet cafe or hiding behind proxy

I'm speedying this - "Wilsan Tjiawi" is a student at the Nanyang Technological University, where the IP that created this article originates from. I am satisfied that it is an attack page, and will delete it immediately. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SCHNAPPPI

I'm not sure what this is about, but if it's what it purports to be, then this would surely be a copyvio anyway. Bovlb 09:27:24, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Delete as non-encyclopedic and a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 09:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Schnappi surely is notable (hence the correct entry). The girl was performing on the British Sunday morning program "Smile" yesterday and the song hit the charts in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany already and is quite popular with the kids. Still, these lyrics are copyvio to boot and there's no reason to list them as such because we don't need a rewrite. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio as we already have a correctly titled article. This song has proved to be very popular around the world. It is the first top 10 hit in Australia sung in German since 99 Luftballoons by Nena and that had an English version. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete article history and redirect to Schnappi. Martg76 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Amren ^(talk) 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless an English, uncopyvio version is written. Cnwb 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, see Schnappi. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Schnappi; this version up for deletion contains the whole songtext; do you want it translated (please no)? btw: how I hate this song, it was played day in day out everywhere in Germany, so that after a while spent in malls or shops, you had the impression that little crocodiles were beginning to grow inside your head...Lectonar 09:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete with little crocodiles, no need to redirect every misspelling, especially all-uppercase ones. Barno 23:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
~~merge with David Hasselhoff~~ errr... rework and expand as desperate warning to the rest of the world that there exists something apparently worse than Barney & Friends or Tinky-Winky Redirect as per above Roodog2k 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by TheCoffee, Zscout370 as recreation of previously deleted content. Tito xd 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian National Congress - IT Cell

This page has been Vfded before with a consensus to delete. Non-notable department of a notable organisation Botsie 09:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, department of a notable organisation. Kappa 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- But is the department notable enough to deserve an article for itself? Seems to be just vanity by an officer of the org and the author of Rivaji. If the article was anything beyond a list of office bearers, I'd say merge with Indian National Congress, but the way it is I don't see any value in it. --Botsie 10:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually I will withdraw my vote. Kappa 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that the Congress Party of India is definitely notable; but this article is on the "IT Cell" within it, and notability is not established. It is simply a series of names. Sliggy 12:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - has been deleted before and the information in the re-created article is the same as in the old one Vino s 12:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a politically biased nomination. The nominator is Indian, but he calls the governing party of India "non-notable". Osomec 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. A close perusal of the article will make clear that this nomination does not refer to Congress Party (which of course must be kept), but is about an affiliated/subsidiary organisation. Sliggy 14:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I voted Congress if you must know. However, the article has failed to establish notability for it's IT Cell. --Botsie 09:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Quasipalm 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Sliggy, i.a. I thought if this has already been vfd, it can be speedily deleted again. Dottore So 17:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by fvw, [[User:Zscout370}]] as previously deleted content. Tito xd 05:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rivaji

Non-notable, Vanity, Deleted once before Botsie 09:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. What Botsie said.--inks 10:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is consensus that Indian National Congress - IT Cell (Article for Deletion above) is not notable then speedy delete, otherwise keep. Sorry for the conditional vote, but this article's only creditable claim to notability is vice-presidency of this IT Cell. If the IT Cell is not notable then this article immediately makes no claim to notability and can be removed per WP:CSD Articles 7. Sliggy 12:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, echoing above sentiment. Combine the two into one VfD? Dottore So 17:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moldo

Was tagged as speedy, but I say a druid organization with several branches within the UK would be notable and quite hard to find online. I'll drop it of here instead for your opinions. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Looks dubious to me. Delete as unverifiable unless someone comes up with evidence. Kappa 10:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete the stuff about illegal in Moldova makes this sound very likely a joke. I also can't verify it from my computer, although that is somewhat inconclusive in an obscure case like this. -Splash 19:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I suspect this is a hoax. No hit for "Penhros mystery" on Google. Groeck 21:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendrone

Neologism, not encyclopedic, dicdef. Bovlb 09:45:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator --Botsie 10:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quasipalm 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete a hairbrained neologism. -Splash 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete made-up stuff, insult page. -- WCFrancis 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Cnwb 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fanboy trolling. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:39, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 01:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rogers Cadenhead

Was tagged as a vanity speedy: it is most likely a vanity article; the IP of the editor is the same as the subjects home (Jacksonville, FL) suggesting it was created by the subject or a friend or relative (info on ip location is from: [4]). and was said in another tag not to assert notability when the article states, he sits on the RSS Advisory Board, registered benedictxvi.com several weeks before the pope was named and also did some reporter work. If you take that together, I'd say calling this non-notable is a bit hasty. Keep, unless someone can prove the RSS Advisory Board doesn't exist or has no real importance in the computer world. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Marginal Delete. The RSS board is notable, and important as an organisation, but its members are not necessarily notable (and don't need to be). The books are not especially notable. Given that some Wikipedians have similar accomplishments, I'm not fully convinced he merits an entry.--inks 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, author of popular books. The fact that some wikipedians may be accomplished is not a reason to deprive users of information. Kappa 10:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

However, it is not recommended that wikipedians author articles by themselves, which is surely the case with this article; it's still a vanity article. --Quasipalm 16:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not recommended but if they come up with a reasonably neutral and factual article it shouldn't be deleted just because of its source. If someone else had made it, would the article look so different? Kappa 18:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - this is pretty non-notable stuff as far as I can tell. Writing a book itself does not mean the person should be included. I looked up the books on Amazon and their sales rankings are #30,000 and #80,000. The website isn't very notable and the RSS board may or may not be important enough to cary the article. Mainly, I think this is an auto-biographical vanity page, only edited by a single author who's IP address comes from an ISP in Jacksonville, where the author and subject both live. --Quasipalm 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Not as important as the author seems to think, but above the line of notability for me (author of a few non-vanity books.) Sdedeo 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Cadenhead is known for his RSS work, cruel.com and the Pope Benedict antic. Article could be beefed up, but he is a well-known web pundit and writer. Jessamyn
Keep; he's had some books published, and I have heard of him in numerous articles when Pope Benedict was announced for the website. ral315 17:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Despite the author's admission that this is vanity, the subject is still notable. I reaffirm my keep vote. Ral 315 22:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
This comes across as a self-promoting, vanity page. I appreciate the arguments iterated above, particularly the noteworthiness of the various projects, but the fact is that letting vanity pages stand withers the credibility of Wikipedia and mocks the efforts of those who contribute to it. If another editor wishes to create a page about this guy, I will vote to keep. But since I accept the evidence that this is self-authored as convincing, I vote Delete on principle.Dottore So 17:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- isn't Jacksonville sort of big though? I agree that it's bad precedent if the guy authored it himself, but do we know that or just strongly assume it? If people think it's a keepable article except for the author, I'd happily do a rewrite of it, or re-create it, however this sort of thing usually works. Jessamyn 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. Trollderella 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per Sdedeo. Meelar (talk) 17:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep; Cadenhead is notable and the stuff in the article is interesting and relevant. It answers exactly the kinds of questions somebody would have who was looking up Cadenhead in the Wikipedia. betsythedevine 21:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All the little stuff adds up to enough of notability. Gamaliel 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is established within the article. Hall Monitor 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete I'm probably notable enough for inclusion here by virtue of the RSS board, 21 computer books, and brief papal namespace infamy, but I did write my own Wikipedia biography as an experiment, and for reasons I detail today on my weblog, I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005

I knew it. ;-) Don't feel bad, I don't think I deserve a wikipedia article either. --Quasipalm 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In light of this admission, can we resubmit to VfD and have it properly voted on as a vanity page? Much of the above misses the point. Dottore So 18:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I object to redoing this VfD. rcade seems to be confused as to the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about doing a clever blog post and then letting everyone else tidy up after it has suited your purpose. I am really very tired of this. We all knew it was a probably vanity when we voted the first time around. My evaluation of the article as a weak keep stands; the basic principle that article subjects do not dictate the terms of their inclusion should as well. Sdedeo 19:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment again. Reading rcade's blog post, it seems that he was acting in good faith both in creating and later voting delete on his article. However, my vote still stands and I still object to redoing the VfD; the community has looked at the article, found the subject notable, and that's all that needs to be said. Sdedeo 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to echo the sentiments of Sdedeo. My vote is based upon the merits of the article, not who created it. Hall Monitor 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. What Sdedeo and HallMonitor said. Being eager to have a wikipedia article about you has zero bearing on the question of whether or not there should be a wikipedia article about you. The point of Wikipedia is to let people find information about stuff that has some reasonable notability. betsythedevine 11:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Vanity_page Problems with vanity articles:

The most significant problem with vanity article is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" articles to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit article, it should be deleted.

In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the User namespace rather than deleted.

Another danger is inherent in auto-biographical articles. Users might write articles pertaining to their own work. While the authors of such articles might not consider them "vanity" articles, they are in violation of the soft policy against writing articles on one's own accomplishments.

I don't think I saw this page when poking around Wikipedia to see if there was a prohibition against autobiography. That reference to a soft policy isn't as clear as it could be -- does that mean there's wiggle room and it's a matter of judgment? In any case, if Wikicities accepts my proposal for a non-famous biography wiki, it should make this particular editing issue easier to resolve. Moving a self-promotional or dubious biography to another wiki should be easier for contributors to accept than a deletion. rcade, 31 August 2005
- WP:VAIN is a guideline, not a policy. Logically, if the information within an article can be verified and meets the qualifications set forth by WP:BIO, it should be kept regardless of how it began. Multiple precedents exist which we can refer back to. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Richard Bozulich was recently closed with a unanimous vote of keep after the subject requested his article be deleted. There are also precedents for the retention of autobiographical "vanity" articles, such as Jesse Liberty and Cyrus Farivar, although the latter discussion was somewhat contentious during the second go-round. See also Jason Snell as well. Hall Monitor 17:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Title Pending)

Vantiy. A webcomic, no evidence of notability (although the title is hard to Google). sjorford (?!) 10:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

delete webcomic vanity. 27 comics doesn't meet webcomic standards for inclusion, either. Brighterorange 17:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
(delete) per above Roodog2k 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above Ziggurat 22:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mutney

Patent nonsense William Avery 10:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why exactly this is nonsense? If it is as patent as you claim, you can have it speedied, but that would require some additional explanation. - 131.211.210.14 11:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is whimsical nonsense. 'Parlucknab' Googles only to thsi article. Eddie.willers 11:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Can't believe I missed that. Still, I'd love to see some more info on mutney and how (non)sensical it is. Just because the company fails to google, doesn't mean Mutney will either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

- Puhleaze! This article is total nonsense! 16th century monastic recipe indeed! 'Mango chutney' (a mixture of tamarinds, mangoes and spices) hails from India. Why would anyone try to 'improve' it by the addition of mustard and/or stilton cheese? DELETE Eddie.willers 11:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Chutney is a 19th century word, according to COD. Stilton Cheese is no preservative! William Avery 11:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I don't believe it exists, based on the fact that if I google for 'mutney "mango chutney"' I get few (if any) valid references. Good VFD. Halo 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yep, those are pretty good reasons. (I was just being careful). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless good verifiable evidence is presented prior to expiration of discussion. The "Smutney" remark is, I think, the giveaway that this is a joke, making it a borderline-speedy as newbie test. (This is probably not a good time to mention that "Mutney" was the narrator's wife's pet-name for the narrator in H. G. Wells' novel Tono-Bungay. Although I am an H. G. Wells fan I think an article on the pet-name for a character in a novel would quality as fancruft). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Interestingly, Parlucknab seems to be quite unknown on Google, except for a couple of encyclopedia links. Looks like a partially successful hoax to me. Groeck 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete but it's funny as hell. good one. SaltyPig 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN heh... cute... Roodog2k 00:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Granta

Reluctantly I name this pub for deletion. It is near the river and has got a nice view from its two floors. The entry freely admits that it has nothing much to speak for it. It hasn't got an illustrious history or particularly good or poor beer. Really, I like the place, I do, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a grab-bag of data. Pilatus 11:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep/disambig: Make it a 3-choice disambig page, with only a link to the place the pub is located (but no article for the pub itself). This shouldn't be considered for delete, because it needs to either be a re-direct for Granta (like it was) or a disambig page, which includes two or three entries (which it almost is). --rob 12:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions recommend to drop the initial article. The river and the publisher are both called "Granta". Pilatus 12:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I took a quick look, and am not clear of what part of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions you're refering to. I thought I read the GFDL requires us to keep the old edit history of article, if the content there-in was used elsewhere (in a re-direct/merge or a move without copying history). It appears there is content that predates Granta. So, if you don't wish to do a disambig, why not just revert back to the previous re-direct. Seems quick and easy. It's pretty normal/legit to have a re-direct from a possible (though wrong and/or obsolete) spelling of a place. --rob 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I was talking about: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Incompatible_votes. It explains why "Merge to Example and Delete" is invalid. Basically, any old history has to be kept, no matter what, if any of the old content found it's way into the new article. I interpret that to mean, we can't delete this old article. Now the "merge(?)/redirect" part was done a long time ago, and we can't now to the delete part. I'm new to this, and can't say for certain. --rob 12:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_the_definite_article_.28.22the.22.29_and_the_indefinite_article_.28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29_at_the_beginning_of_the_page_name. Granta is the publisher, and a stretch of the River Cam is are known as Granta. Those are in the right place. The Granta (also named correctly) is the entry on the pub, which I don't think should have a home in Wikipedia.

Thanks for the precise link, which I just read. I'm not sure we disagree. I'm saying there should be *no* pub article. I'm advocating The Granta *either* be a disambigation page or a re-direct page. But, not a "content" page. You're entirely correct, that there should be no "content" page called The Granta. Disambiguation and re-direct pages aren't subject to normal naming rules. In fact, their whole purpose is to move somebody from the wrong name, to the correct name. Also, I agree Granta and River Cam should stay in the same place. --rob 13:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article asserts it's famous, but does not say how and why. Martg76 13:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability sourced. I'm all in favor of these sorts of articles, but the notability has to be explained and sourced. Sdedeo 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- According to this website [5] there are 118 pubs in Cambridge. Unless they are specially notable (The Eagle Pub is an example) I'd rather see the rest in Wikitravel. Pilatus 14:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's just a pub. -Splash 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not even a good pub, from reviews posted on the web Groeck 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn pubcruft. --Etacar11 02:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - the article is poor as it is, but it probably has encyclopedic potential. What about a photo? See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bars and public houses. Bovlb 05:33:56, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Delete, we can't have articles on every pub in the world. Unless there is something unique about this one, which has not been proven, it doesn't deserve its own article. Suggest author and those who think it's worth keeping take it to Wikitravel. Zoe 07:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender roles in Islam

Almost entirely original research. The sources cited do not match the claims made. Any actual encyclopedic information on this subject can already be found on Women in Islam, which I would suggest this re-direct to. Irishpunktom\^talk 11:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Admittedly as the guy who did most of the work I have an interest. But there is no original research. The sources do match the claims made. Much of the information here is not found on Women in Islam although a merger of parts is in the works. This call is totally premature given the work going on to fix the problems. A peer review would probably be the more sensible option. I urge people to read the article(s) for themselves. Lao Wai 12:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, after reading the article's talk page I'm detecting a whiff of bad faith here, to be honest. The article DOES need work, admittedly, and I'd support deletion if it can't be improved jamesgibbon 12:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding your suggestion, I have been trying to work with this, I mean compare what the opening paragraph was like when I began work on it. Note too how Lao Wai constantly removes my request for citations, and constantly includes the allusion that all women of Medina were all Ansari (Helpers of Muhamad) - That is obviously untrue, but he keeps adding it anyway. [6], [7], [8]. Note also how The Source he uses to justify his assertion "Obviously this is a vision of Heaven that is more likely to appeal to men. Eternally virgin dark-eyed Houris are unlikely to appeal to many women" says nothing of the sort, in fact is says almost the opposite ("The life of women in Jannah will be as pleasant and happy as the life of men. Allah is not partial to any gender. He created both of them and He will take care of both of them according to their needs and desires. Let us all work to achieve the Jannah and then, in sha’ Allah, we will find there what will satisfy all of us fully."). Anyway, besides that, anything of any merit is already dealt with in Women in Islam, a more stable and more Accurate and more NPOV piece.--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Look this is not the place for a slanging match over this. I flatly deny saying what you have just said I said. If you want to discuss this in a civilised manner I suggest we take it to the Talk Page where it belongs. Again I urge anyone who cares to read the relevant pages. Lao Wai 15:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. We do have separate articles for women and gender roles in Western culture, so why not Islam? Having NPOV problems is definitely not a sufficient reason to go to VfD. Sdedeo 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Women in Islam --Grcampbell 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep 'gender' is not the same thing as 'women'. Trollderella 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep 'gender' is not the same thing as 'women'. Homophobia and sexism related to gender roles is a big problem in muslim societies. Notable topic. Klonimus 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Grcampbell. Women and gender aren't the same thing, but women are, you know, a gender. Information about women in Islam = information about one of Islam's gender roles. Penelope D 17:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this article should be about both gender roles in Islam, not about women in Islam. Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Which part of this article would suggest would not have a place in women in Islam?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect or delete without merge. This vote may not be taken as any form of 'keep'. The scant references in the article (one of them is a link to Google!!) do not persuade me that this is not-original research and here is not the place for such. Get good references in there, and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, it needs to go, per WP:NOR. If this can be rewritten as a proper article, it can of course stay. -Splash 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your vote means. You cannot redirect without keeping the content, unless you mean delete then recreate a redirect? Trollderella 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can! You can simply blank a page and turn it into a redirect. That complies with the GFDL. The only thing you can't do is delete after copy-paste merging. -Splash 23:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge, or better, Merge Women in Islam into it. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Trollderella. Did I just say that? --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge - with Women in Islam, or merge Women In Islam into it. Daemon8666 22:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably merge (for now) - hypotheticaly 'women in' and 'gender roles in' are two distinct subjects - but these are not currently two distinct articles. A clear demarkation is required, and some heavy NPOVing. I'd suggest merging and then dividing in some other way - perhaps an article on the Qu'ran material and one on Islam today. Do not 'keep' as stands. --Doc (?) 23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Article is SERIOUSLY flawed, but the topic is legit. Woman in Islam does not equate gender roles in Islam. --Striver 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep You guys blow, like a hurricane. roll offle. Gold Stur 21:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep needs work, but what doesn't Roodog2k 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep There is definitly scope for a serious article in the topic. Women in Islam and Gender roles in Islam are clearly two separate topics. Bandraoi 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The topic is great but I think whole article needs thorough revision in terms of contents as well as style. In current form, I beleive it should be deleted.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:16, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evan McKinney

Non-famous vanity article. Google search for Evan McKinney + keyword techno gives just one return. andy 11:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - When the sole content is a pair of self-taken photos, that pretty much screams vanity. --rob 13:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete vanity! Brighterorange 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete article and Delete image --Quasipalm 16:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Dottore So 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity - both 'before' and 'after'. Cnwb 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 22:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Nv8200p 00:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AY Overdrive

Non-notable band. Al 12:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Quasipalm 16:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete gets a single Google hit, and nothing on allmusic.com. No evidence of meeting any part of WP:MUSIC. Also haven't got as far as having their own website yet! -Splash 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Splash. --TheMidnighters 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source Winamp Stuff

WP:NOT a repository of links. Loganberry (Talk) 13:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Quasipalm 16:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. This article has no content. -Splash 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Useful. Naelphin 12:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Useful it may or may not be, but policy is that "collections of external links or Internet directories" are not suitable for Wikipedia; see the WP:NOT link above. Loganberry (Talk) 13:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Move Anybody got an idea where to put this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.29 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lara Roxx

I am placing a VFD on this and, probably, other articles concerning porn 'stars' simply because, all too often, there is confusion between 'notability' and 'notoriety' - this is a perfect example.

Lara Roxx, Darren James and their ilk are 'notorious'. That is, they are known, but in an unfavourable manner and in a restricted circle. They cannot be considered as 'notable' or 'noteworthy' as they have not added anything to the sum of human intellectual achievement or to the human condition. Nor are they particularly striking or worthy in their achievement.
They cannot be considered as 'actors' other than in the sense of their being participants in an act. They are not 'theatrical performers' in any sense - being filmed whilst having sex does not require any communicable skill.
Tough on Lara, but catching AIDS in your line of work does not make you notable either. I am sure that if one dug around, there are cases of medical professionals catching AIDS in their line of work - folk who are probably a good deal more 'socially useful' too (dons flamproof suit quickly).
Wikipedia can, does, and should have entries for 'notorious' persons (eg:Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer) who may be considered notable for their actions, the effect of those actions and the amount of interest garnered by those actions in a general social sense.
- In the case of pornography, and with reference to the above paragraph, Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner are good examples of those who may be considered notorious and notable.

Let the Games begin! Eddie.willers 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

keep I don't buy the distinction between between notable and notorious wrt the wikipedia standards for inclusion. "Adding to the sum of human intellectual achievement or human condition" seems to me to be a weasly way of excluding people whose behavior doesn't please the nominator; that is, it is an inherent POV value judgment. Therefore, there is no proposed valid reason for this to be on the table for deletion, so keep. Brighterorange 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Made the news, hence notable. Halo 13:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Would also like to say that it sounds like you are trying to use VFD to push an agenda, which I don't think is a good idea. Whatsmore, if we used your method of saying that someting is notable, we wouldn't have pages on murderers etc either because they haven't done anything other than "kill people" which has gone on for thousands of years. I don't think someone necessarily has to have done anything intelligent to be noteworthy as long as they are somewhat known in their field. Halo 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Eddie, please do not do this. This will be an annoying experience for all. Sdedeo 14:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep clearly notable. "Notoriety" is a POV on this Sliggy 14:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep even I heard about this. A 60 day work stoppage in the porn industry is notable. Klonimus 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Pah! Comments noted and VFD nomination withdrawn - having no wish to provoke "an annoying experience for all". Still, POV issues aside, I do not believe that porn 'stars' merit an encyclopeadic article. Eddie.willers 15:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for being understanding, Eddie. Sdedeo 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- VfDs cannot really be 'withdrawn' as such. For example, I wish to comment on the article now it has come to my attention, and others may also. -Splash 19:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This one has some minor interest per the start of the article. That does not apply to most porn-stars however, and I would be interested in a selective VfDing of those that are non-notable. Simply VfDing them all would not be appropriate however. -Splash 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Let's keep in mind that "lack of notability" has never been accepted by consensus as sufficient grounds for deletion of articles. We're not dealing with the assistant editor of a high school newspaper here. We're talking about perfomers who appear in movies that are widely distributed. Many of them also appear in magazines that are also widely distributed. This makes then public figures, and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article, as long as it provides some relevant information beyond "Candy Blossom is a porn star." The "porn stars aren't notable" argument smacks of a bit of prurience. In an encyclopedia that has articles on fictional characters, TV show episodes, and reality show participants, it is hard to justify deleting articles on performers in a popular, mass market form of entertainment. Zeromacnoo 19:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The criteria outlined by Eddie Willers are NPOV and should be irrelevant to considering biographies. According to WP:Bio the relevant criteria is "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more." Ms Roxx meets these criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't buy the distinction between notorious and notable. Whether or not everything the proposer says is true, they're still notable and worth putting in Wikipedia. (And the fact is, much of what the proposer says, I consider to be nonsense and wrongfully judgemental, and I'm sure I could find fields of interest that I consider to be without skills and merely notorious among a restricted field that the proposer would disagree with.)--Prosfilaes 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Having looked at the article, I have to wonder what you were thinking. Yes, being the first person in four years to get AIDS in the porn industry and prompting potential government intrusion or changes from within to avoid government intrustion is notable.--Prosfilaes 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
KEEP as is (in)famous with many people, it's perfectly notable. Notorious would be a subset of notability in any case. Further, I remember a VfD on every Victoria Cross holder, since Victoria Cross awardees are imminently more notable than Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, ever CMH holder should also be VfD'd because they are inherently less notable. So... if being notorious is not good enough, we should VfD "Al Capone", "Caligula", "Nero", "Pol Pot", "Papa Doc" Duvalier, "Robispiere", "Elizabeth I", "Ivan the Terrible", "Vlad the Impaler", "Jesse James", "Billy the Kid", "Ulysses S. Grant", "Heinrich Himmler", "Marilyn Monroe", "Martin Luther", "Copernicus", ... 132.205.3.20 20:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Would you miss it? Really? Those of you who said "yes" just now, are you sure you weren't lying? Tsk-tsk. Fine, fine, deal this as Abstain then. --Agamemnon2 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- We are not building wikipedia for our own benefit, so the question of whether we would miss it is irrelevant. Kappa 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Jachin 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A one month cessation in such a huge industry is notable, and if Ms. Roxx was a major contributing factor to that, then she is notable. Cnwb 00:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, notoriety can = notability, but I don't want to let anybody think this is an endorsement of Halo's claim that everybody who ever made it into a newspaper deserves an article. Zoe 07:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep because she r0xxors. —RaD Man (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gamaliel 08:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep unconditionally. Hall Monitor 22:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Cnwb and Kappa. No opinion now about notoriety vis-a-vis notability; I'm going on "widespread media coverage" and on "significant effect on one's field". Barno 00:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep I don't like what they do, but they are legally allowed to do it. Also, the inital "notable" vs. "notorious" argument implies a judgement, which is not what this is supposed to be about; it's about collecting information. Frankly, they are both "editorializing" in any context. Insisting someone is "notorious" as opposed to "notable" is forcing your values on this, this is not about that.

Keep It will be such an hypocresy to deny this element of our society and culture. If the article was written it is because somebody thinks the topic is interesting. At the end that is wikipedia a completely democratic source of information.
Keep Pornography is important in our society, and this should be reflected in Wikipedia too.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied after moving to User:01asada -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 01asada

Article is a duplicate of clown. I cannot figure out the title either. Two google hits, it seems to be something Japanese. Unsure about whether this is a speedy so I'm bringing it to VFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Google hits appear to be for a review of a restaurant named Asada and a profile of a student named Taisuke Asada, and the 01 seems to be simply part of the html naming scheme for these pages. The page in question is unrelated to either of these. Yelyos 14:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. User should also be blocked as he's being abusive by removing VFD/Speedy delete messages Halo 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milion

Delete. This article states that "The word Milion is the Roman term for the Greek Milos and is mentioned in Mathew 5". As it happens, the alleged Greek measuring unit Milos is a flower of fantasy

"1 diena: pirmadienis arba penktadienis (372 mylios / 595 km) Niujorkas - NIAGARos

kriokliai ... 3 diena: trečiadienis arba sekmadienis (432 mylios / 691 km) ..."

For one of the many pages on the web using this unit of measure go to
www.nycotels.com/lhrs/pages/east_trg.htm
Rktect 13:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[9].

And Milion is simply the Greek name for the Roman mile, not a separate unit. An entirely misguided concept is not a good starting point, and the rest of the article consists of the usual rktect rants (see User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect). A redirect is not required; Wikipedia is not a Greek lexicon. -- Egil 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Milion is not the Greek name for the Roman unit because its Latin not Greek.
Milion is the Roman name for the Greek unit from which the Roman Milliare is derived.
You can raise the issue of what evidence is there that a Greek unit of 8 stadia = 1 (Roman name for it) milion existed?
The evidence is that the name the Romans chose for their mile was milliare.
In latin the milliare is differentiated from the milion or mylios
The Milion or Milos are the Greek units which were the source of the Roman mile.
The Greek Stadion was also the source of the Roman stadium.
This information comes from Vitruvius a Roman Architect.
In his "Ten Books of Architecture he tells us that the Romans got their units from the Greeks.
If you read his book you will discover why he says that.
Milion is not a misspelling for million, its not a flower,
its not original research, its just something you don't happen to know. Rktect 13:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Quasipalm 15:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Just merge it with million. No harm in picking up a posible speling eror, given how crapy the search engine is. Trollderella 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per User:Egil. My brain hurts. Pilatus 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and recreate as redirect to Million. -Splash 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Rktect is insane, seriously. Read his contributions. I'm scared. :P Jachin 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy redirect Speedy because criteria G4 in WP:CSD this content should be removed (evidence: [10]) and redirect to Million. -- (drini|☕) 01:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If there is any salvageable content move it to the appropriate articles, then redirect to Million. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 02:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research, then flip a coin. Heads: redirect to million. Tails, redirect to Ancient weights and measures. --Carnildo 04:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, more of Rktect's original research regimen. Full disclosure: According to Rktect, I am part of a cabal out to get him. Zoe 07:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect over to million and move on. —RaD Man (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lara language

A constructed language with a few problems. Firstly there is actually a language called Lara spoken by about 12,000 people in Indonesia [11] however this is not it. I can only find a handful of google hits associated with this particular language, and most of those are conlang websites that can be edited by the user. Also the author of this article readily admits on his talk page that he is the original author of the language in question. The other pages that are linked to from the article (Esperanto, Italian and Wikisource) were each started on 27th July, 25th August and 27th August respectively. I'm just not getting the impression from my research into this that it's that notable. Francs2000 | Talk 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable language not in common use. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable; original research; silly --Quasipalm 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - No sillier than many articles. I see that Google is still the main arbiter. 212.101.64.4 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Invented languages should be included if they are notable for academic (e.g., interesting and discussed example) or cultural (e.g., Klingon, etc.) reasons, even if those reasons are minor. No claim to notability exists here. Sdedeo 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For a language to be notable it needs to have an impact on the world outside the home of its creator, i.e. having a significant and verifiable number of fluent speakers and/or being the subject of a rather extensive professional discussion, preferrably in printed media. A list of words, however long, should not be enough. However, there are obviously Wikipedians of a different opinion, which is why I'd like to urge anyone voting to delete this article to check out the straw poll being held at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes where an attempt is made to create general criteria for inclusion of constructed languages. This vote might very well end up with any language with X number of words, or even "a unique script"(!), being deemed worthy of a Wikipedia article. / Alarm 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please start by checking out the discussion about the draft policy proposal on Wikipedia:Conlangs and various subpages. I agree that some of the criteria some people have proposed are a bit silly, but you'll notice most if not all of the silly ones are getting a lot more oppose votes than support votes (oops, I used the word "vote"; Messrs. Bruning and Forrester are going to pile on to me...) even from the conlangers. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Mind, the long list on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes and on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal should by no means by treated as a proposal of criteria, all of which can individually determine a language's notability. It's merely a collection of possible criteria proposed by individual people. The purpose of the whole discussion is merely to establish some objective criteria for conlang notability. As someone who cares for conlangs and to whom it is an important field of interest, I want a conlang section that is clean and of high quality; I do not want to be overly inclusive, and I definitely do not want articles about 1200 individual conlangs. To me, number of words and a unique script do not make a language notable. And yes, some of the proposed criteria are a bit sillyl. By the way, Alarm, I find it strange that you only urge "anyone voting to delete this article" and not those who want to keep it. I would agree with you if you urged "anybody", not just the deleters. --IJzeren Jan 13:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. Dottore So 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep it, but see the article I hope to start from Lara called Lara (language), and help solve disambig problems! Trollderella 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Do you intend to make this present article into a redirect in that case, or to actually keep as it is? -Splash 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, made up non-languages would need to jump very high before they warrant an entry in a ssdgkdsfdssdj. (That's Splashian for 'encyclopedia'.) -Splash 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- sdaassskk. Gadaaass kkdfsdfasd "fellow Splashian" aassssfd dlww! Sdedeo 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm very hesitant in this case, because indeed the language looks interesting and complete. The fact that the author of the language is also the author of the article (and also of the articles in other wikipedias) + the smallish number of ghits is decisive for me. --IJzeren Jan 05:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please not that this is the only Wikipedia. The word "wikipedia" is not a generic term. Zoe 07:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, granted. What I meant was of course: wikipedia in other languages. --IJzeren Jan 10:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non notable language with no uptake or real recognition. Barneyboo 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - for a conlang to be noteworthy, it needs a LOT of notoriety outside its circle, in the mass media, etc. Klingon, Esperanto, and Tolkien's works fulfill those criteria, almost nothing else does. Which is as it should be. --Agamemnon2 21:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or I'll make up a dozen languages and submit those as articles. Groeck 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Frlyrh, which is Delete in my personal constructed language which, by amazing coincidence, also happens to be called 'Lara'. Nandesuka 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- My dear, judging the (non-/)notability of a constructed language project is one thing, ridiculising language construction is another. Please don't do that. --IJzeren Jan 05:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable, original research, vanity. --Carnildo 23:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -Sean Curtin 02:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, or. --Etacar11 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: as soon as there is a page for the natural language Lara this page will be quite harmless. Also, it is better written and more interesting than most conlang pages on wikipedia, in fact more interesting than quite a few stubs, so why not keep it?--Kaleissin 09:48:13, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
- So if it's well written nonsense, the fact that it's nonsense means nothing to you? Fabulous, I'll go and write some now. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  - What's your problem? There's got to be more worthwhile things to do than being rude to people. Please define nonsense while you're at it. --Kaleissin 12:22:25, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
    - My problem is your reason for saying (implied) keep - by your reasoning the article should be kept because it is well written, not because of its content. I can point to plenty of articles that are about notable content but just not well written - should they go? If I wrote beautiful prose about the contents of my trash should that stay? No, so if you believe the content should stay because you feel it is notable enough for Wikipedia then say that, don't confuse the issue by saying "it's well written so it should stay" -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      - It's best having a page that is 2 out of 2. This one is 1 out of 2, but there are tons of pages that are 0 out of 2... After Kim Bruning's nuking of the conlang-vote page I'm not sure I'll ever bother to be explicit here again. No keep, no delete, means no vote right? Ergo no drive-by shooting. Whatever, it's academical now anyway. --Kaleissin 18:47:26, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Transwiki to the Conlang Wikicity and then delete from Wikipedia. Google search for {lara "constructed language"} [12] gets 42 hits but almost none of them relate to this particular conlang - most just have the personal name or surname "Lara" or a word in some other conlang with the form |lara| somewhere on the page. I see no evidence that this conlang has notability within the conlanger community, much less outside of it. Nor is it verifiable without original research, as apparently nobody has written about it yet besides the creator of the language. If in the course of years the language does become notable (aquires some speakers, a fairly large corpus, independent review and discussion in the secondary conlang literature, etc.) then any article about it should probably be titled Lara (constructed language) to distinguish it from Lara language, the natural language of Indonesia with the same name. But it is a non-stub article, fairly well written for a non-native speaker of English, and it's good content for the Conlang Wikicity. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see that 80.127.232.138 has already copied the page to the Conlang Wikicity [13]. I have no objection to deleting this Wikipedia article at any time now. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally believe googling for {lara "constructed language"} is unfair, because you exclude anything that is not in English. In cases like this one (especially since the creator of the language is Italian) I much rather google for LANGUAGE NAME + SURNAME OF THE CREATOR. In this case, "lara" + "pedicelli" generates 72 ghits. --IJzeren Jan 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point; we should probably cover that and similar issues when treating the "gets at least N Google hits" criterion in the draft Conlang notability/verifiability policy.

~~k'hun doi~~ delete inventedlanguagecruft Roodog2k 00:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal

Hopelessly unmaintainable list. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Another inane list. --Phroziac ^(talk) 15:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hopelessly unmaintainable. Alphax ^τεχ 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
weak Keep I don't see this breaking any rules and it could be useful --Quasipalm 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic --Joelito 16:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is silly. Pilatus 16:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Mobile Phone subsection Driving controversy --Grcampbell 16:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As of now, redirecting to subsections is not possible, afaik. ral 315 17:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I talked about merging the details with Mobile_Phone#Driving_controversy, not redirecting, though that could also be ok... --Grcampbell 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, failing that merge as above. I think having a detailed list would clutter that page too much. Kappa 16:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no need to merge or redirect. ral 315 17:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, merging would be fine. Trollderella 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons cited above. Dottore So 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Grcampbell. --Idont Havaname 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Grcampbell or just keep. The main charge here is unmaintainability. But it is eminently maintainable: there are only a couple hundred countries in the world (at any given time), and in most of those, there's no explicit law against mobile-phoning-while-driving. That said, it would be better in context in the main article in its present state and could be spun out if it gets long. -Splash 19:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly unmaintainable. In the States, AFAIK, laws like this can be as small as town-to-town. Any notable national/international trends should be reported on the in "mobile phone" article. Sdedeo 20:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge tiny lists where reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:13, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
Delete. Unmaintainable. ManoaChild 20:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment:I would suggest that merging is a mistake. This list will be huge if people start adding to it. Huge. Thus, it will need to be split off into a seperate article soon enough anyway. If it isn't kept seperately, it shouldn't be kept at all.--Scimitar ^parley 20:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable and not encyclopedic. Groeck 21:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge to any article thought suitable. Perfectly encyclopedic and I can't imagine why it would be thought to be remotely unmaintainable; the criteria are clear--that there should be a statute against operating a mobile phone while driving in some circumstances within a jurisdiction. The appropriate section of Mobile phone, as suggested, would be okay. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Lists suck. Jachin 22:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep (or merge) lists do normally suck, but actually this one is quite informative. Frankly, Sdedeo the fact that the US does not choose to have a nation-wide law on the issue isn't a reason to delete a list of info about the rest of the world --Doc (?) 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Grcampbell - Mike "Mig" 23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, could be useful. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful and topical list. Needs a better title, though. 23skidoo 05:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, silly list. R adiant _>|< 08:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
RENAME and REWORK Define place??? Municipalities is no good, since there are too many. Roodog2k 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Lapinmies 23:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheat Planet

advertising Melaen 15:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Groeck 15:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quasipalm 15:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete well I knew nearly as much as before reading the article. Alf 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Champion of the Thames

It doesn't have the history of the Eagle, nor does have the traditional interior of the Queen's Head in Newton. Maybe the entry can go next door to Wikitravel, but it doesn't belong here. Pilatus 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep --Quasipalm 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep HoratioVitero 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Pubs in Cambridge or somewhere. Kappa 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The comic novel Porterhouse Blue is great fun - I recommend it. But being obliquely referenced in one novel doesn't make the pub notable to me. --Finbarr Saunders 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The initial editor of that article thanks you warmly! (And you know I'm biased on Cambridge pubs so I'm staying out of it). Alf 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Another nn pub. Dottore So 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has a literary mention, and we should keep or merge it anyway. Trollderella 17:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. It's dark and grisly inside too. -Splash 19:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a pub guide. --TimPope 19:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Again with the Cambridge! I kind of liked the Champion, nice crowd. But a mention in Porterhouse Blue (a veritable orgy of Cambridge in-jokes) is not quite enough for notability, IMO. If the article were enlarged to establish some history and context for its notability, then I'll change my vote. Sdedeo 20:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, worth it if only for the explanation of the name. Old pub's in the UK have wonderful names which almost assert notability by themselves. If you had a pub named after you, you were famous. Hiding talk 21:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather put the Boat Race connection into the article on the Boat Race. The pub itself is a nasty indiscriminate undergraduate watering hole for the kids from Jesus. Pilatus 14:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Groeck 22:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Jachin 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Hiding --195.92.168.175 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - the article is poor as it is, but it probably has encyclopedic potential. What about a photo? See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bars and public houses. Bovlb 05:33:02, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Strong delete, yet again another nn pub. Zoe 07:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shockwaveworld.com

Delete this isn't a yellow pages of current non-notable websites, nor is it a place for cheap advertising Grcampbell 16:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 16:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ral 315 17:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I checked Alexa traffic rankings and this site doesn't even show up. --Quasipalm 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Quasipalm. -feydey 02:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious hoax. Contains several claims that are verifiably false. Never nominated for any oscars and Christopher Walken never appeared in it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yowl like a barse

This film is not included in IMDB's entry for Christopher Walken [14]. It was not nominated for an academy award in 1999 [15] or 2000 [16]. Googling and searching IMDB for the name of this film returns nothing. Notability not established; possible hoax. Sliggy 16:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

and "Tiff Risco" has been deleted by a previous Vote for Deletion [17] Sliggy 16:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, the above link is for a Tiff Risco "film", this is the link for Tiff Risco himself Sliggy 17:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - It made me smile anyway. As I have suggested in earler VfDs, That something is not listed by Google is not sufficient to justify it's deletion. I rather suspect that using google to justify the deletion of an article is merely being lazy. (IMNSHO) 212.101.64.4 17:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- True, but why keep an obvious hoax? We're an encyclopedia, not a joke book, after all. -Splash 19:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
strong delete as an obvious hoax. The fake claim of academy award nomination clinches it. Brighterorange 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Because something doesn't exist is sufficient to justify its deletion. Halo 17:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax; is the title meant to come out as "you like up arse" when said quickly, or is that just my dirty mind? --LemonAndLime 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- But yeah, it did still make me laugh. "Best sound editing" gag is a good 'un. I vote to delete obscure academy awards. Heh. Sorry. --LemonAndLime 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~vanity~~ oops, I mean dumb. --Quasipalm 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete blatant hoax.--Scimitar ^parley 17:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Even if it were funny (it's not), it wouldn't be an appropriate article. Delete. Al 17:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN--195.92.168.175 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoaximus maximus. -Splash 19:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Barsecruft. Gazpacho 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and ask the creator to 'stop adding nonsense' to WP. We've had a run of these 'barse' related articles deleted already, the joke is wearing thin (speedy as vandalism?)--Doc (?) 21:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
'Delete, just because something is nonsense doesn't give it BJAODN rights. Zoe 07:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I resisted explicitly voting before because I wanted input to ensure this wasn't a film akin to Bad Taste. It clearly isn't, so I've added a speedy delete to the article under WP:CSD General 3, silly/joke article vandalism Sliggy 08:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etwaru

Delete, Vanity Article -- RB McLeroy 17:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Vanity and advertising. Go team Etwaru! Not. --LemonAndLime 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Quasipalm 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Retwaru if he so wishes. Alf 19:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:31, 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 Copyvio'd, tagged and bagged. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fanny Pack

Fanny Pack is a non-notable vanity article about a high school band. (I'm sure UK readers will love the name of the band.) --Quasipalm 17:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

They're the lot who released a single called "Camel Toe" aren't they? I liked that song. Keep and cleanup, with a proper discography being a must. --LemonAndLime 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.candypushers.com/Includesv2.1/bioCandy.php?ID=19 (and related pages, presumably). Kappa 19:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. If they are responsible for the hit song "Camel Toe", they meet WP:Music and warrant a legitimate article. Capitalistroadster 20:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete the band vanity article then REDIRECT to fanny pack. Dunc|☺ 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It's not band vanity, it's copyvio from the website of a notable band. Kappa 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment As stated earlier, this article should be deleted as a copyvio. It should also be noted that this band has an Allmusic.com article [18] showing two albums on the Tommy Boy label and charting singles and albums on Billboard charts. "Camel Toe" made the singles charts in Australia so these guys clearly qualify under WP:Music.Capitalistroadster 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio, but band deserves article. Sabine's Sunbird 01:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to fanny pack. —RaD Man (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. The notability criteria appear to be met, per the preceding discussion. Keep any Capitalistroadsterization at Fanny Pack/Temp. Uncle G 18:26:00, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
I heard a college jam band in North Carolina about three years ago who had a song "Cameltoe", and it was their most likely song to make it as an underground single, but least likely to get mainstream airplay. I doubt this is related. Note to prudes: Don't click the Camel Toe link while researching, please. It's a redirect to Vulva. Barno 00:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden downturn of F5 tornadoes

This is not really appropriate as a stand-alone wikipedia article. It would be a candidate for merging, but it is not clear at all to me that there is even some kind of interesting sudden downturn to be spoken of. The article also lists F4 tornadoes, without apparent relevance. Mgcsinc 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, encyclopedic and verifiable.Gateman1997 18:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete, In 1990, there was an F5 tornado in Plainfield, Illinois. --Mjvan12 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- No offense intended, but this article refers to the downturn since 1999.Gateman1997 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge relevant content into tornado. This article is poorly titled. The information is encyclopedic but should probably be part of a more general article. --Idont Havaname 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge just the preamble into Tornado. The rest of the article isn't about F5 tornados — the list is all F4s! -Splash 19:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-contradicting article. The lead states that the U.S. has been experiencing an unusual lack of F5 tornadoes (none since 1999, or 6 years ago), and then states that it isn't uncommon to go 5 or 6 years between F5 tornadoes, and cites a bunch of examples. Thus, there is no "sudden downturn".--Scimitar ^parley 19:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge any useful info into Tornado. Carbonite | Talk 19:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, unfortunately. Or, link to an article discussing the phenomenon. Right now, there is no evidence (presented in the article) that this is anything other than a statistical anomaly. Sdedeo 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Original research - plus it's pointless, an atmospheric study over this short of a term is completely irrelevant. --Outlander 20:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if anything, science seems to talk about an upturn in tornados, not a downturn. Groeck 20:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research CDC (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge into tornado. Really belongs on that page as a footnote or sidebar (do we have sidebars?). --BrownHornet21 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
strong delete sources? primary research? bad name for article anyway. Roodog2k 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge into tornado. The comments on the discussion page (about possible reasons for the downturn) are more useful than the article itself and, if verifiable, should be incorporated. Cmadler 18:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no actionable information. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, irrelevant, self-contradicting (as pointed by Scimitar) and statistical inconsistent. Marlosfabris 2:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samstock Music Festival

Your average high school could draw more than 600 people to a concert. This is definitely a local event. Denni ☯ 18:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Might as well merge a little into Youth for Christ which now runs it. That it's been taken under their wing probably means it was of some interest to them but I agree with the nominator as to the local nature of the event. -Splash 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have made the article's intial editor aware of this VfD and pointed them here. Alf 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nn advertising. Sdedeo 21:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dondy

Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 18:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - vanity, resume - should have been CSD A7 --Outlander 19:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I was going to nominate this myself when I was called away, It's hard to tell by what I read exactly how he fits into the achievements noted, best I can see is that he's a part of a group that might have won an award..shrug. Rx StrangeLove 20:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Mindmatrix 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Dondi. Zoe 07:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technohavenot

Neologism Outlander 18:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete to BJAODN as attack page / neologism. (Click the link at the bottom of the article; it appears to be attacking some user here.) --Idont Havaname 19:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and also the image by the same user connected to the article - Image:Th1.JPG. feydey 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete attack page, not especially funny. Gazpacho 20:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete not funny. Groeck 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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 under CSD A7. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodrigo Handall

Advertising GinaDana 18:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator Lullabye Muse 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete very bad vanity/spam. (Included email and phone number) --Etacar11 02:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam. Hall Monitor 22:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks International

Advertising. GinaDana 18:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising. Why is it that everyone says they are an "Industry leader"? --Outlander 20:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Not everybody; only the firms that are not industry leaders. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I hate ads in WP. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Lullabye Muse 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Soon as. Blatant ad. Moriori 22:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No true consensus, will redirect to Cockney rhyming slang. Note that redirecting to a section doesn't work. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porkies

Even if the article is cleaned up, I don't believe it could be anything beyond a dicdef. I think the least bad option is to merge salvageable content into lie. Aecis 18:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as neologistic dicdef. I've never heard the term used, and I've heard of quite a few euphemisms for lying. --Idont Havaname 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above. It's a real term, and I believe it comes from Cockney rhyming slang. Porkies can also refer to porcupines, as in the famous movie line "I hate porkies, they irritate me." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Cockney rhyming slang, or maybe to Porky's. Already in wiktionary, if anyone was wondering. Kappa 19:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Cockney rhyming slang#O-P, though Porky's is tempting. Alf 20:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge and disambig with Porky's. Trollderella 20:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a real cockney term, still in usage today, at least where I live, and should be a Redirect to Cockney rhyming slang#O-P per Alf. Hiding talk 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- See bugzilla:218 (Redirects do not handle named anchors well). Bovlb 01:31:07, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Redirect As above. Jachin 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Disambig to Cockney rhyming slang, Porky's, and Lies. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I wrote this because it was a requested article, from the list of missing encyclopedia articles. However it is a dicdef and it is rhyming slang..although I thought it came from Glasgow rather than London. ping 23:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Alf. --195.92.168.175 00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. It exists. It's "Cockney rhyming slang". It's used in Glasgow. Bovlb 01:31:07, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maureen Brooks

Advertising. This page, Brooks International and Rodrigo Handall are all connected and created by the same user. The latter two are also up for deletion. GinaDana 18:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator Lullabye Muse 20:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/spam/ad. --Etacar11 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hair Update

Delete Non-notable local barber shop; it looks like Maoririder's back Soltak | Talk 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete nn UkPaolo 19:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete this Short back and sides shop. Alf 20:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hair today, gone tomorrow! (delete) Dunc|☺ 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tõnu Trubetsky

(Previously Tony Blackplait)

Listing at VfD only because it does not seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. While the subject may have perpetrated a hoax (i.e. passing his band off as the original Flowers of Romance), that does not make him unnoteworthy (and as I know little about Estonia or its music scene, it is hard to determine). If there are falsehoods in this and related articles they should be cleaned up (and I have been making an effort at this for several months, since the anon. editor of the articles in question began to show up). Using Wikipedia to perpetrate a hoax (and for self-promotion) is a different issue. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: Anon. user first showed up in January asserting that a band calling itself "Flowers of Romance" was the comeback of the original, and that Sid Vicious was thus a member. I confronted the editor about this and he backed off the claims. Unfortunately this seemes to have only happened in the English Wikipedia, resulting in this post to the Commons Village Pump. Also see Talk:Tony Blackplait and Talk:The Flowers of Romance (band) for more history of this issue, as well as Talk:The Flowers of Romance (band 2) (though the article itself was speedily deleted [wrongly IMHO]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've just had quick look on Google (which I know shouldn't determine a keep or delete) and it appears to me that a large proportion of the search results are from other Wikipedia articles or copies thereof. (I have a gut feeling that his page might be worth a weak keep, but I don't feel competent to properly vote, knowing nothing about the subject matter.) --Finbarr Saunders 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't seem encyclopedic in content, scope, nor subject, with questionable source. (SEWilco 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC))
Keep no clear evidence that it meets the deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete References are mostly on Wikipedia in different languages. Very questionable. Groeck 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete The "facts" given in the article are all false. The listed movies are unknown to the Internet Movie Database. When entering the name into google search all that comes up are Wikipedia-Pages in other languages and copies of Wikipedia and other Wikis where the name has been tricked into articles (like one about Sid Vicious). The complete article is one big lie. Kju 21:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: It's hard to explain the case in English but I'll give my best. Blackplait (Trubetsky) is an Estonian anarchist and a real-existing person. I really doubt he has (ever had) no connection whatsoever with the "original" The Flowers of Romance. But he is a singer in Estonian band Vennaskond and he's been using the pseodonym Blackplait. I think the situation is that some person has been sending false data to wikipedia and other similar sites in the Internet. He has released an album under the name The Flowers of Romance in Estonia, but there is no connection whatsoever with the "original" band. The "Estonian Flowers of Romance" is a band consisting of Vennaskond' members whose names have been anglicified (Allan Vainola has changed to Al Vainola for example). It's probably kind of a homage to the band, and so the "Estonian TFOR"'s a mix of facts and fiction, it's kind of urban legend. On the movies/books/albums the facts are actually mostly right. All the albums listed have been released in Estonia and of three movies I have seen two, one of them is currently located on my HDD by fact (though they are really bad amateur-documentaries). Trubetsky didn't appear as an actor in movies "Serenade", "The Sweet Planet" and "War", he actually was a animator on those (working at the time in Tallinnfilm movie-studio). Estonian titles of the movies are "Serenaad", "Magus planeet" and "Sõda" and you can find them in IMDb, with the information on Trubetsky being an animator listed only on the case of "Sõda". I guess he appeared in Pekka Karjalainen's Hysteria (information on this film's at IMDb, though he's not been submitted to the cast list, but hey, the imdb's incomplete like anything else.) The case is the same with books: they're in Estonian and not known in the world so I guess it's hard to find information from the Internet and I doubt they're ever been translated to English so their names would have to be in Estonian. I know anonymous users' opinions don't count on VfDs, but my suggestion would be to move the article under the name Tõnu Trubetsky (as he's not know in the west that well under the name of Blackplait and to clean up the information on movies and books, as he in fact's pretty well-known in Estonia and Finland (as a member of Vennaskond). The only part on which' autenticy I doubt is from "...and lived in different cities..." to "made a "demos" with Teet Tibar, his Estonian friend." This part is imho the only part of article that should be deleted or at least improved very much.
  - Please show proof for what you are telling us. I still don't believe. I find your information very hard to believe. So you are telling us that "Flowers of Romance" is both the title of an album released as well as the name of his band? This is not very believable. And even if the information is correct, this raises the question if the guy in question is of enough relevance for wikipedia. I don't think that "really bad amateur-documentaries" are a criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. -- Kju/Kju (de) 22:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    - For what it's worth, eponymous albums are fairly common. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    - as it was said, there are many eponymous albums released. anyway, on the films you can see all three enlisted on Estonian Film Foundation's website. sadly the site's english version has no such list. the DVD for the latest film is sold here. on books the first place of info I found is an online bookshop (sadly in Estonian too, but I hope it'll do) and you can listen Vennaskond's music here and The Flowers of Romance's here. I hope it'll do. And I can cut you a sample from one of the movies if that's needed.

on the "really bad amateur-documentaries", they are music films, mostly a collection of music and live videos from different eras and some other segments, like the band walking the streets of Helsinki or playing cards on a ferry boat. they aren't quite what you'd call a movie, that's what I meant.

and I don't know if he's known so well to have an article in English Wikipedia. But in here exists an article of a dumb Estonian popgroup Click OK; if they're considered notable, than he's certanly notable too.

Delete. Well done, Kju. Sdedeo 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: I made some further research. The books listed are as fake as the movies are. The titles can't be found in international library catalogues. The complete article is fake and wikipedia has fallen for it - until now. -- Kju/Kju (de) 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, dubious veracity. --Etacar11 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep'. I back the opinion and the proposals of the anonymous contributor above. Move the title to "Tõnu Trubetsky". The "hoax" obviously is due to a mystification by Trubetsky himself and his band companions. The titles of his books are given in translation in the article, this is why they cannot be found. The films are not the reason of his fame, they are just musical videofilms documneting the band's activities. Tõnu Trubetsky is a famous and influential figure in Estonia. I added the Estonian wikilink to et:Tõnu Trubetsky, and I'll make some clean-up there. Andres 07:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Tõnu Trubetsky and changed the title here. Andres 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- The list of his books is here. Andres 08:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The most popular search engine in Estonia, neti.ee, gives 749 results when searching for "tõnu trubetsky" (http://www.neti.ee/cgi-bin/otsing?query=%22t%F5nu+trubetsky%22&src=web). He is a famous musician. PeepP 08:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. User:Andres. reverted the Tony Blackplait article and appears to be an impersonator of User:Andres. Listed at WP:AIV. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep clearly a valid topic (or redirect if that is what we are voting over now). --Dittaeva 09:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Kerman

Non-notable fokelore, possible vanity on the part of the persons mentioned in the article. No hits on Google, Yahoo Outlander 19:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it does claim to be an urban legend. (Unsigned comment by Earthlingdave (talk · contribs)
- the term "Legend" implies notability, that is that the story is well known. This story does not appear to be well known, in fact it does not appear to be known at all outside of this article.--Outlander 20:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing on http://snopes.com. Delete. Al 20:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Now, hold up, I have heard of the Kerman before. This is only to perpetuate the legend aspect. (Unsigned comment by 38.117.156.189 (talk · contribs)

- Please document, with sources ---Outlander 16:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I did not find anything on Google Groeck 21:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I say don't delete. (Unsigned vote by Earthlingdave (talk · contribs))
Delete unverified (that such a legend exists). --Etacar11 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Dio Christmas

No record of this album exists. False information. SeannyFunco 20:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Al 20:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Groeck 20:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. -Hmib 02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete joke. I like the Elven Workers Union song, though. --Etacar11 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Juddembah records

nn vanity, or even possible hoax. No references found on Google. Groeck 20:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete 18 grammys and nary a google hit? Seems like hoax to me. --Etacar11 02:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Ison

Appears to be vanity. 600 some Google hits for several different people. His name paired with the local radio program he hosts yields 0. lots of issues | leave me a message 20:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity Groeck 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete User:eddie h 17:48, 5th September 2005 (BST)

This is to wind a member up on a web forum called 'Metropol 24))7'. There is no need for it to stay. Topic (Comment by eddie h (talk · contribs))

VOTE to remain. Biographical. (Unsigned vote by 84.65.191.242 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Jesus Church

Not notable microfaith - and not really verifiable. They have a website an posts to a few dozen boards [19]. No independent coverage as far as I can see, which is strange for an exotic religion. --Doc (?) 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'suppose we could redirect to Judaism --Doc (?) 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

~~A pretty clear delete. Sdedeo 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)~~. Delete unless information in the updated article can be sourced, in which case keep. Sdedeo 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I like the part of having to use marihuana as sacrament, though. Groeck 21:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

please do not delete see added info in text Rev Shields

Please do not delete. The religion of jesus Church has been on the basic of many 'modern' churches who's members use cannabis as a sacrament. the simple fact that there seem to be not enough time/effort by wiki editors to dig up some "approved" sources does not justify the absense of this religion in an encyclopedia which claims to be complete and neutral. Also, being the founder of the Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry and keeper of the international members DB I know the numbers of people world wide who are officially registered with only one of the cannabis related religions and I can assure you this is not a "small group" but a very fast growing international community in more than 40 countries. Ferre 09:05, 3 september 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drake's Theory

Band which seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 21:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator Groeck 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Mindmatrix 01:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kreation

Another compelling argument for shooting obvious nn band vanity on sight. - Lucky 6.9 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, these really should be included in the CSD. --TheMidnighters 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 23:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAST Adventure System

Insignificant. Self-promoting spam. Flex 21:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Groeck 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn/spam. --Etacar11 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Mad Method

Vanity page for a band that seems to have no notability Barneyboo 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence that this band has any significant audience. Kappa 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep CincinnatiWiki CincinnatiWiki 23:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: if you give a reason for your vote, you might persuade someone to change their mind. Kappa 23:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you for the suggestion. I have listened to the band play, and they are making a notable contribution to the Cincinnati music world. They deserve mention on this encyclopedia. Remember, wikipedia is not paper!CincinnatiWiki 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    - Please review WP:MUSIC, that is the objective qualification for bands to have articles on Wikipedia. And you should know that User:Kappa votes keep on everything, so for him to vote delete, this is really non-notable. Delete, nn, by the way. Zoe 07:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity Groeck 00:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 08:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with Zoe, except that Kappa votes "keep" on very very nearly everything, technically not on "everything". Barno 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantbank

As written this is an ad. Delete. Warning! A previous VfD tag was removed by the anon creator User:81.157.223.191 without any explanation. Cje 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Jachin 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True statement

Created by user DotSix (violating his ArbCom injunction). Looks like original research and/or a POV fork of Truth. --cesarb 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete not valuable Groeck 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef (and a pretty self-evident one at that). --TheMidnighters 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 23:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per TheMidnighters ManoaChild 00:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV (only presents one theory of truth) and unencyclopedic Banno 20:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Nate Ladd 21:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC) Is there some reason why this cannot be marked for Speedy Delete? I would think it would qualify since it was created in violation of an Arb Comm injunction.

conceivably, under criterion five, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion; but not until DotSix is banned: Wikipedia:List of banned users. Banno 21:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barstow Rock

This is a hunk of rock on the bottom of a harbor off the coast of Massachusetts, USA. You can see it on a nautical chart here - this indicates that at low tide, it's under eight feet of water. Some rocks, maybe even some underwater rocks, are encyclopedic - but I don't see any evidence that this one is. CDC (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete if it had some historical significance, like being the site of a famous shipwreck, I could see keeping it. But just being a rock is not notable enough to keep. Allegrorondo 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A barren, otherwise unnotable rock on the sea floor is not encyclopedic. Suggest if author wants to keep, he merge rocks into articles by harbor. Sdedeo 21:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge by harbor. Kappa 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Either merge with the harbor, or delete, but there shouldn't be an article at this location. Meelar (talk) 22:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a nautical chart. --Carnildo 23:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa. Trollderella 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. ManoaChild 00:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Groeck 00:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn unless something important happened at this rock. --Etacar11 02:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No more rocks! Gamaliel 09:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, an article on an underwater rock? This is getting silly. Proto t c 11:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete by smashing against submerged and insufficiently referenced rocks. I would vote "keep" if famous shipwrecks were widely reported as happening here, or if widely notable songs described the challenges of avoiding this rock while sailing a whaling vessel. Barno 00:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Jewish Council

Nonexistant organization, No website on google. Not notable when/if it existed. This article causes confusion with American Jewish Commitee, which is a notable and existant organization. Please visit User:Klonimus/AINB, a notice board for wikipedian's working to build an encyclopedic encyclopedia. Klonimus 21:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable. Note that the address the article provides for the Council is shared by "Peek a boo challenged artists, inc." [20]. I have no idea what that means, except to indicate the group's extreme newness and non-notability. Sdedeo 21:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Groeck 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jachin 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I think it's reasonable to assume the organization did actually exist, but was probably just one person with a free web site (http://ajcouncil.freeyellow.com/) and PO box, both of which s/he abandoned. --rob 10:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] black recluse

No evidence to support article's claims; original author unresponsive to queries.

More specifically, a request was placed on the author's (User:Corvun) talk page for documentation of the claims on the page, after several searches of the relevant literature came up with no evidence to support the existence of a "black recluse" spider living in the Pacific Northwest (or anywhere). No response was given; the author later deleted the request (as part of a general "housecleaning" of his talk page).

Further, the page makes claims concerning this creature which are rather specific in nature--which need external documentation; the page also makes the rather specious claim (regarding the "ignorance of local fish and wildlife organizations") that the local authorities on fauna in the region are uninformed.

--EngineerScotty 22:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete There is a Brown Recluse Spider. Maybe the names got confused, as one article on the internet acknowledges. Groeck 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I lived in the area for a decade, and I never heard of it. --Carnildo 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The grand dean block association

no evidence of notability; very POV and somewhat bitchy Natgoo 21:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Groeck 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, kind of a rant. Doesn't even tell us where this block is. --Etacar11 03:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Hoodie

Clearly a hoax. No results on google, just some stuff related to clothing called a "DJ hoodie". CryptoDerk 21:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Groeck 22:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverified/hoax. --Etacar11 03:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly as per nominator. Hall Monitor 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Palace Fine Jewelry & Art Glass Showroom

Delete advertising. TheMidnighters 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a side note, since this nomination User:Markz85 has removed the vfd notice and blanked this entry. --TheMidnighters 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising, as per nom. Groeck 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, blatant ad. (I count four identical links to their online store in the body text.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. VfD notice was removed by 152.163.100.7. Replaced. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, clear commercial self promotion. 152.163.100.7 just tried to remove the VfD notice yet again; replaced. Owen× ☎ 01:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. obvious advertisement, vfd notice was removed again by 205.188.116.7 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 03:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: Various anonymous IPs from the AOL proxy pool are repeatedly removing the VfD notice from this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, they're blanking the whole thing, which is slightly different from removing the VfD tag and leaving the rest of the article. But I'm splitting hairs here. FreplySpang (talk) 04:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  - Re-re-re-re-added VfD notice. Was not blanking this time. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-promotion/advertising. FreplySpang (talk) 04:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete advertisement.Shsilver 11:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I've aggressively trimmed the blatantly self-congratulatory stuff from the article, and reduced the number of links to the online store from four to just one. I still think that the subject is non-notable, however; Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancy

vfd on page but author did not create vfd entry. Content seems to be unverifyable. Groeck 22:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism/hoax, I think the actual word being discussed here is "antsy". --TheMidnighters 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hoax word --NeilN 04:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). We have 10 votes to delete (Quale voted twice, accidentally I'm sure), 5 to keep. That's borderline. What swings this over to the "no consensus" result is the fact that the last delete vote was given without any reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Almeida

A very sad story, but that does not make it notable nor worth keeping. Groeck 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The contributor might want to look at some alternatives to wikipedia if they want this information to be preserved. Kappa 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Under either C.7 or because the original text includes "Edit or delete at your discretion." While I understand the desire not to let someone fade away into memory, WP is not the place for memorials. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the article establishes notability: "she was in all Canadian news sites at the time of her murder". Kappa 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep does not meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 00:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no more notable than any other solved child murder. "In all Canadian news sites" doesn't hold much value when the author then says "...but I could only find one." — Lomn | Talk / RfC 00:13:23, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~. An internet search eventually leads to articles from the Toronto Star (see [21]) and National Post (see [22]), though I can't access them. There is also a soccer field named in her honour in London, Ontario. Mindmatrix 01:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. After some contemplation, I've decided to switch my vote. Mindmatrix 20:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Trollderella's ideosyncratic keep criteria are not those of Wikipedia. Zoe 08:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established by article. Gamaliel 08:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How does Wikipedia is NOT a memorial not count as deletion criteria, Trollderella? Proto t c 11:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT a memorial does not imply that all articles about dead people must be deleted. Kappa 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with regrets. It's a sad reflection on modern society that this has become a common enough occurence not to be notable.--Scimitar ^parley 16:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, notable. Gateman1997 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand the references section of this article. Hall Monitor 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Edit, there is a page at cbc.ca that may be a good link for this story, but it is presently unaccessible due to the cbc strike
Delete. Most horrific crimes are not notable in themselves, and do not confer encyclopedic notability on their unfortunate victims. Quale 16:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
keep please because kappa is right and wikipedia is not paper either Yuckfoo 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, a person who's only notable as a crime victim should have an article only if they have significant name recognition on their own. That is, if a meaningful number of people could hear their name, without any explanation or context given, and know that a crime victim is being discussed. Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Cecilia Zhang have this type of name recognition, but Naomi Almeida has virtually no name recognition outside the immediate London, Ontario area. The likelihood of somebody typing "Naomi Almeida" in the search box is vanishingly low, since virtually nobody is ever going to hear the name outside of a context that already explains who she is. So, to me, that's a delete, sad though the story may be. Bearcat 19:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Quale 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nittwits

Keep I, the creator of the entry, was alerted to this by a fellow Nittwit. As he correctly pointed out, the Crazies have an article of their own so there's no logical reason why we cannot since both organizations are remarkably similar in purpose. BroadSt Bully 02:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Crazies have been around for a while, while the Nittwits have only around for about 2 years. They have various articles written about them as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Nittwits received a great deal of press last year, as is illustrated on their press page... hence it is notable. It is one of the largest and most visible student organizations on campus and adds a great deal of value both to the Penn State athletic scene and student life.BroadSt Bully 14:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten article BroadSt Bully 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep The Cameron Crazies have their own entry; therefore I don't see why the Nittwits can't have their own as well. This is something that is going to last at Penn State for generations of students to come. 68.162.127.139 02:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable entry about a student section at Penn State University basketball games. -- Jtalledo (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete If this were an association with a grand tradition behind it I could see it, but their web site says that they were "Founded shortly after the 2003/04 season" so I concur they are not notable. --DavidConrad 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per DavidConrad. Any discussion of the official student section at Penn State University baskball games belongs in an article about the basketball team since the Nittwits have no independent significance or interest. Quale 19:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Commander

Doesn't seem encyclopedic. Reads like advertising. Al 23:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't tell if it's bad advertising or a poor slam of the product/developers/distributor... --Daedalus-Prime 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above (and above!)--195.92.168.166 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator Groeck 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I've been programming computers since 1978, and I can't figure out from the description what this "program developed by it's [sic] developers" is supposed to do. Sounds like a spyware Browser Helper Object, but the prose doesn't make a lot of sense. --DavidConrad 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to User:Hooperx. -HX 17:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mystory - 2006

completing VfD entry. Crystal ball for artist with entry also on VfD WCFrancis 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Martg76 02:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete — given the lack of citations, this should be removed rather than being, say, merged back into Posse of One. The page This Music Sucks - 2006 has a similar issue. — RJH 15:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Marskell 13:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoned Cognition

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

I got 15,000 when I tried it: [23]--Fallout boy 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Woohookitty 09:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) RESULT replaced with DELETE, in line with Woohookitty's apparent intention. Bovlb 14:54:12, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Antipov

strong delete Vanity promotion. Abs: 6 pack and other data like that belongs to a modeling portfolio, not wikipedia.

delete abakharev 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete, there are copyright issues with the image too. --Ghirlandajo 10:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
delete. -Irpen 02:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete vanity, promotion, not notable DEng 23:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Most of the article was a copyright violation from here, changed from the first person to the third. Bovlb 06:30:58, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
Comment Actually, the mostbeautifulman.com artcile was directly stolen from something *I* wrote for here, all they did was change the third person to first .. and badly at that.

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] August 29

[edit] RENNtech

[edit] The Green Foudation

[edit] Phenomenauts

[edit] Zolo Music

[edit] F'sho

[edit] Conquering Chemistry

[edit] John F. Long Pool

[edit] Tsamaidis

[edit] Gleneagle Secondary School

[edit] List of people widely considered eccentric

[edit] Day of my Capture

[edit] Sos

[edit] Guide to Gungan/Basic pidgin

[edit] Macellarius

[edit] Malarky

[edit] Martin Jernehed

[edit] Mexico City Metropolitan Airport

[edit] Chateau st michelle

[edit] Unholy Death

[edit] Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

[edit] Physical Culture

[edit] Andrew mcmahon

[edit] Bertel king

[edit] Monday Montana

[edit] Dance Schools in Oregon

[edit] FlexCast

[edit] Wilsan tjiawi

[edit] SCHNAPPPI

[edit] Indian National Congress - IT Cell

[edit] Rivaji

[edit] Moldo

[edit] Nintendrone

[edit] Rogers Cadenhead

[edit] (Title Pending)

[edit] Mutney

[edit] The Granta

[edit] Gender roles in Islam

[edit] Evan McKinney

[edit] AY Overdrive

[edit] Open Source Winamp Stuff

[edit] Lara Roxx

[edit] 01asada

[edit] Milion

[edit] Lara language

[edit] List of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal

[edit] Cheat Planet

[edit] The Champion of the Thames

[edit] Shockwaveworld.com

[edit] Yowl like a barse

[edit] Etwaru

[edit] Fanny Pack

[edit] Sudden downturn of F5 tornadoes

[edit] Samstock Music Festival

[edit] Dondy

[edit] Technohavenot

[edit] Rodrigo Handall

[edit] Brooks International

[edit] Porkies

[edit] Maureen Brooks

[edit] Hair Update

[edit] Tõnu Trubetsky

[edit] The Kerman

[edit] It's a Dio Christmas

[edit] Juddembah records

[edit] James Ison

[edit] Religion of Jesus Church

[edit] Drake's Theory

[edit] Kreation

[edit] FAST Adventure System

[edit] Mad Mad Method

[edit] Atlantbank

[edit] True statement

[edit] Barstow Rock

[edit] American Jewish Council

[edit] black recluse

[edit] The grand dean block association