Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 5

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chupa-mos.com

Article about a non-notable Portugese language forum. Seems borderline speedy from a cursory reading, but the anon users working the page don't seem to like the tag I added, so we'll try VfD instead.. Delete. Ken 00:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• What's this, a website? Hmm. I hear there are a few of those kicking around. Delete. -R. fiend 00:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. Hamster Sandwich 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We're going to document the web? :-) Leonard Cuff 02:44 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete They didn't even make a link to the website. How sad is that? --EatAlbertaBeef 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for chupa-mos.com is 91,305. a quick search of the portuguese wikipedia for chupa-mos.com shows nothing there, either. Nateji77 05:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Briangotts (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See Wikipedia is not --jonasaurus 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete see WP:NOT EdwinHJ | Talk 23:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Edwin. MicahMN | Talk 23:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's nonsense Tonywalton 23:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the above reasons BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Every internet user in Portugal know Chupa-mos.com, it is not only a website or a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.88.90 (talk • contribs) 05:18, August 10, 2005

My vote is not to delete this. Chupa-mos.Com is more than a forum. Is a way of life. Chupa-mos is a totally brand all known between Portuguese Internet users and the way this forum is reflected on real life is notorious. (Preceding unsigned comment originally by 194.65.16.130 18:10, August 9, 2005 UTC, then altered by L0rd Rayd3n 18:14, August 9, 2005UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barse

'cos it's bollocks --Doc (?) 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

now see the Vfd on Gibbering Kate --Doc (?) 15:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a load of arse. Googling for barse along with the "two words to rude to include here" generates 88 hits. And I just don't believe the 95 mentions in that film claim. -Splash 00:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (preferably speedily). Nonsense. Flowerparty ^talk 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. There was no "2005 remake" of Finding Neverland, just for one thing... Ken 01:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a crapfest to me. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now i feel such a ribbage duck. the shame, the shame... Hamster Sandwich 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Apparently, even though I am English I haven't heard of 2nd most popular insult in England! This is a hoax. JeremyA (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • On checking with my sources, I am informed that it can also refer to that part of ones anatomy between one's " — " and one's " — ". Which is handy to know, but woefully unverifiable! -Splash 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • so its like a "choda"? Hamster Sandwich 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently so. And, to my horror, Taint is a bluelink, and I come to wonder if we should redirect to perineum. -Splash 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like someone's trying to put Roger Mellie's Profanisaurus (from Viz onto WP. All those terms come from there. Tonywalton 11:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Barse is already listed in the "Perineum section" of the body parts slang article. Nice. Hamster Sandwich 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw the movie (actually 2004 and not a remake). Sorry, no barse there. Leonard 02:44 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like a load of barse to me. --EatAlbertaBeef 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. MicahMN | Talk 23:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Secretlondon 15:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to La Hire. Although I voted here, I do not think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. -Splash 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Here

Quick googling on "La Here" "giant" gives a couple of hundred hits about Los Angeles. Hoax? DS 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to La Hire, which appears to be what this article is talking about. Nothing to merge, since I think "giant" is mistranslation from "great" or something. -Splash 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per splash. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• ...and if I'd just marked this as speedy, I'd never have known that. I agree, redirect to La Hire. DS 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• redirect per above. Briangotts (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Redirect, per DS. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Splash. MicahMN | Talk 00:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural health

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• comment .

Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits

Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.

My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.

I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.

--Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets about 54000 Gooogles, but it is readily apparent that few of them apply. Since this and the following VfD are closely related, it is germane to observe that "Cultural poisoning" -aunk -wikipedia gets only 150 unique Google hits. "star model" "Cultural poisoning" gets a single hit. "Cultural health" "Cultural literacy" -aunk -wikipedia gets gets 59 hits. "Cultural poisoning" "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets 13 Googles. Since all these terms must be related from this article's perspective, I am concerned that the usages here may well be original research. Further, looking through the Google hits, at least some of them are from non-authoritative web fora and in some cases links to the apparently personal site(s) of the author. Looking through the first few pages of Google hits, and judging by their summaries, I found this which is unconvincing. By way of reference to Cultural poisoning, listed below, Amazon has this which is, as the nominator implies, by Aunk. The question is then, does an article about an author's theory qualify as original research when the same author has a published text containing that theory? It is published by "Writers Club Press", which "publishes on demand" [1] so in this case, there is no independent publication. By way of defence, I see some references at the bottom of the article. However, and this is important, they are not referenced in the text and carry little weight with me as a result since they are not used to support the text. The "See Also" section can be as long as it likes, without mitigating original research. All of which leads me to a delete. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, of the "Here's what I thought after reading these books" variety. Gazpacho 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. The author's view is very un-encyclopediac, but the term "Cultural health" is an accepted one in modern Human Geography studies. Instead of flat-out deleting the article, let's get some good writers in there to tidy it up a bit. --Frag 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, if someone wants to come back and re-write the article. It may be a viable term to have an article on. However, I can't see that there is anything here that wouldn't have to be completely re-written. Alternatively, it could be pared down to a tiny stub, and re-written from that. So I'll put "heavy cleanup" as a secondary vote if some sort of consensus needs to be made. --Icelight 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup per Frag. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, The phrase cultural health is not something new. Putting it in google gets 45,000,000 hits. Millions of people in America are talking about this topic. The article stub needs work to be encyclopedic but the topic is encyclopedic. Someone from the Asian American community at some point in time, will reflect their communities understanding of cultural health. The medical community will do the same. This is a big discussion with many "experts" and the article will grow.

--Aunk 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with Aunk's assessment of the Google test results regarding Cultural health. The 45m figure is for the words seperately, not as a quoted phrase. The search "cultural health" -"health care" -"health club" -nurses -diseases -medical -aunk , gives 17,900 hits, none of which (that I could find) are using the term in the sense this article uses it. Bgeer 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I am not familiar with this term and the author seems to have written it from a POV, sources are cited although not neccessarily reliable ie Pat Buchanan. I would vote to keep even a decent stub given the currency of the term but would vote to delete this. Capitalistroadster 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "original" research (which isn't even original. See eugenics) from a pathetic pseudo-intellectual that can barely even spell (Is english even your first language?) and claims ideas that are decades, even centuries old, as his own. --TheDoober 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Tearlach 16:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this term may be used, its certainly not in this context. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From the discussion above, it is clear that this subject has the potential to have a good, unbiased, article written about it, but the current article is so not that article. I suppose you could do a massive cleanup on it, but that would probably amount to a complete re-write. Might as well just nuke it now, and if somebody wants to write the real article, they can go ahead and do that at some point in the future. The alternative would be to Reduce this to a stub, which I wouldn't object to, but don't really think it's the right strategy. --RoySmith 00:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural poisoning

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Hetep and Respect Bgeer

Bgeer in his Vfd said:"…This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term…"

There are three claims in Bgeer's two-sentence comment.

1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

2. The article describes Aunk's original research

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

First let me say I appreciate Bgeer's interest in cultural literacy. For those who do not know Hetep (sometimes pronounced Hotep, means peace). Bgeer I think you jumped the gun. I was having a similar discussion on the discussion page with individuals interested in the article. I am new but was getting ready to make adjustments to the stub. But let me respond directly to your concerns.

1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

This is a debatable assertion. See info from wiki below. The difference between debatable and deleteable is considerable. "…When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism…. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to no longer be considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard…" [2]

Cultural acceptance is important. This phrase is accepted in the African American community. I have not run across an African American in cyberspace or on the ground that asserts cultural poisoning does not exist in the African American community. In addition many other ethnic groups use this phrase as a google test verifies. [3]

"Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001[1]

The phrase cultural poisoning is essential vocabulary in the cultural literacy discussion of today. See quote from wikipedian below.

"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.

2. The article describes Aunk's original research

The article has been rewritten as source-based research. See wiki policy below.

"…Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia…"

All information listed under references , in the article comply with following wiki policy.

"… it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia…"

The other reason that "original research" should not apply to this article is as follows.

Aunk is writing as and expert on the terms Cultural Health, Cultural literacy and cultural poisoning as they related to the African American community. See the applicable wiki rule below.

"…No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)…"

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

See google test [4] cultural poisoning -aunk -wikipedia 500,000 googles

See quote from page 3 not by Aunk

The Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star, May 4, 1986: Note: Straight ASCII ... In so doing, boomer comedians have become the antidote to a severe case of cultural poisoning,people to whom the baby boom generation probably owes what ... www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/boomhum.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

See quote from google page 3 not by aunk

Jihad Watch: Terror group threatens Dutch with 'Islamic earthquake' We are starting to experience the first stage of cultural poisoning, the noxious effects are just starting to manifest themselves in truly frightening ways ... www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002866.php - Similar pages

See quote from wikipedian below.

"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.

--Aunk 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See my long comment in the VfD for Cultural health for reasons. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However if someone finds an antidote, keep --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Gazpacho 03:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, original research. --Carnildo 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What the hell is this even about? --TheDoober 08:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite from scratch. Having tried a Google on "cultural poisoning" -"Aunk", I agree with Jareth's comment below. But the current original research needs totally scrapping. Tearlach 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup A real subject enclyclopediatic subject but the article is just badly written. Jimbobsween 05:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can completely NPOV and remove all original research. I'm familiar with this term, and while its used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences. The article as it stands is little more than spamvertising and would need a total rewrite to be keep-worthy. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Poorly written, difficult to understand meaning at times.Thraesja 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User has 6 edits --Allen3 ^talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. JeremyA (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Galloway

VBB Forums-cruft. If we're to delete those - and we should - then this should go too. DS 00:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not worthy of inclusion. Flowerparty ^talk 00:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity that is more than a little difficult to understand. -Splash 01:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Although I voted here, I don't think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. -Splash 19:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ipercoop

Not needed, wikipedia isnt a list of little tiny towns 2mcm 00:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article appears to have been rewritten (already!) by Uncle G. Whilst almost a substub the name does get 48000 Googles and I presume is not a real word, so they would appear to be well established. -Splash 01:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Splash. --Alan Au 03:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable supermarket chain. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Briangotts (talk)
• Keep -- appears to be a notable chain of supermarkets. Longhair | Talk 08:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what Longhair said. When i posted the VFD i wasnt aware of this --2mcm 10:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair. Aecis 22:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to infantilism. – malathion ^talk 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Baby

Following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ABDL the creator of that page removed the redirect [5] and pointed to this page. Which was also a redirect until it was removed [6]. Either delete, or redirect and protect. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for merge to infantilism, which looks like it could use some reorganization. Gazpacho 03:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge Diaper Lover into it, as adult baby appears to be the more popular term (googlefight). Eldereft 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD should not be used to solve edit wars. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As there is already an adult baby page which redirects to infantilism, it seems reasonable to just merge this article into that one and make the two capitalizations redirects. Then Adult Baby becomes redundant and can be deleted. 71.106.176.221 09:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The creator of this VfD is abusing VfD to get his own way and anyone who goes against his judgement is attacked as being too close to a subject to be objective. --OrbitOne 11:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge to infantilism NoSeptember 13:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Both Tony Sidaway and OrbitOne appear to be claiming I'm operating in bad faith. Tony should note at the time of this VfD my only substantive edit to the page was to replace the redirect [7]. Orbit should provide evidence of his claims. Per result of the old VfD, Mergeing and Redirecting have already been done elsewhere. Finally, there has been some discussion regarding how consensus is reached. A vote of merge can be interpreted as a "defacto keep", as the closer of the VfD is under no obligation to perform the merge. - brenneman^(t)(c) 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Aaron, I didn't mean to imply you had listed this article in bad faith. I just wanted to point out that the solution to your problem here would be to put the redirect back where it was. There is no need to have another VfD for this, just do it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I was trying to be cautious... but I've done that now. - brenneman^(t)(c) 16:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• merge & redirect to infantilism, adding in Diaper Lover and such. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect. Briangotts (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to infantilism. I performed a revert from the redirect since the VfD discussion is not yet complete. — RJH 17:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with infantilism. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep infantilism is not the same thing.Dejvid 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at infantilism, it looks like a rather dry exposition of something from DSM IV. Well, we're all grown-ups here, we all know it's fun to dress up and play-act, especially with someone we love. The adult baby thing seems to be a description of the fun side. It isn't something that interests me but I can't see any problem with dressing up in diapers and getting changed--I'd do it for someone I love. Equating the infantilism article to this article seems a bit like saying we ought to redirect homosexuality to buggery, or even AIDS. Why not redirect the Sexual intercourse article to Rape? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm... yeah. This appears to be an attempt to characterize this nomination for VfD as a value judgement. Perhaps if we just stick to discussion of the article and leave the wild rhetoric aside? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. I'm only saying that merging the infantilism article with the Adult Baby article would be a loss. I have absolutely no idea why you want to delete Adult Baby in the first place--as I said, you only need to edit it to point at whatever you want it to. Honestly why do you describe my comments as "wild rhetoric"? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Are we to remove references to all minorities, and post only discussions of the majority? Yes, the Adult Baby community is small. So what? There are other communities which are small, but we wouldn't dream of eliminating records of them. And if there is a single party that has chosen to attempt to eliminate all such references to anyone minority, whether that is a sexual, racial, religious, national or whatever other variety of minority, then the motives of such a person should be called into question. Why are attack of such vehemence so frequently applied to this one group? Would the person in question please answer as to what is driving these repeated attacks against even the mere mention of the existence of this minority? Dave 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm... again, yeah. First putting this on VfD is like saying sex is rape, now I'm some sort of crypto-puritan? Is there some reason we can't just talk about articles? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be easy to assume this wasn't personal. If it weren't originating with just one person. Sure, let's talk about the article as a description of a minority in a cultural context. Now, why would you want to delete something like that? Dave 12:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to "infantilism". - MicroFeet 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wundle

Neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 03:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Briangotts (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erick Harris

Eighteen-year-old wanna-be politician, entering Tuskogee this fall. Good luck on that political career (especially as a Democrat in Oklahoma), but he shouldn't get an article until he wins at least ONE election. Calton | Talk 01:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above --malathion ^talk 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Eric Harris (well, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, actually) viable misspelling. -R. fiend 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Good luck in your freshman year, kid! Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RasputinAXP 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, NN. Briangotts (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many young students have been as involved in government like he is. Let's keep the site to encourage other students 68.91.15.60

Though I haven't seen a page, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not a self-help guide. RasputinAXP 01:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I've said this before, there is a high bar needed before one's high school achievements can be considered notable. This doesn't meet that bar. Sirmob 21:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope the rest of his political career goes better than his VfD. --RoySmith 00:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). A very slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Heart School, now moved to Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia

"Sacred Heart School" gets ~85,000 google hits. It's gonna take an amazing disambiguation page to straighten them all out some day. Not notable. Delete. Or at least rename to something more specific. Or maybe this could be made into a list of all schools named Sacred Heart. -- Mwanner 02:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand (my comp can't open the PDF prospected so I can't right now). We can move to a better title if need be. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:03, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
• Delete: no claim to notability, as noted title is less than helpful. The chances of someone search "Sacred Heart School" and intending to get this article are close to zero. 128.112.24.137 03:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer an issue, thankfully. Factitious 22:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until notability established by article.Gateman1997 06:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Drat, and I was hoping for an analysis of the wacked-out education system in New Orleans. Eldereft 08:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there must be 10,000 schools with this name. Disambiguation would be utterly impossible. I'd suggest moving the stub to Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia, but I'd rather see it deleted. Proto t c 09:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/disambiguate. Kappa 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless you can come up with any schools called Sacred Heart that are notable enough to deserve their own articles, in which case dab them. Dunc|☺ 12:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Location established. Notability established. It's a school. Osomec 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Osomec so perceptively puts it, it's a school. Specifically, it's a mixed-sex Catholic school in Halifax, Nova Scotia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to geography-specific name.--Briangotts (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article and expand, or else merge into a school district article. Arguements about a need for disambiguation don't appear relevant to the question of a need to delete the article on this specific school. — RJH 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  If we're going to keep the article it should be moved to a region specified name. I went to "Sacred Heart School" as a kid but it was in California, not Canada.Gateman1997 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep please we do not need to use this place to rename articles Yuckfoo 18:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: It's a perfect criterion #1 speedy delete, in my opinion, as a predicate nominative is not an article. At present, this is an answer, a Yellow Pages entry. Further, the article is wildly misnamed. Further, there is nothing here to explain what is unique (other than the address) about it. All the school harpists can go back to sleep, since I know none will actually do some work to affect the improvement, and save your energies for an actual article on a school listed on VfD. Geogre 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre, poppet-me-pet, could you please indulge me? HOw could an article called Sacred Heart School, written about a school called coincidentally Sacred Heart School, possibly be described as "wildly misnamed"? What name would satisfy you? Wild Hogmistress of the Deeps of the Western Frond Marshes? I'm sorry but I cannot imagine an occasion on which I would regard "Sacred Heart School" as an inappropriate name for an article about a school of that name--I hope you're not joining those advancing lack of disambiguation as a reason for deletion of an article.
  • And then there the other falsehoods you pile on this. You tell us that the article is "a Yellow Pages entry". Well so what? You claim that it's a CSD 1, no it isn't. "No meaningful content or history, text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters)". The article is an excellent stub because it's useful, it informs someone who didn't know (I didn't) that there exists a school in Halifax, Nova Scotia, called The Sacred Heart, it's a mixed sex, multiple-age school and the current Canadian leader of the Sacred Heart Society is an alumna. This is not a CSD1 and the fact that you blatantly assert falsehoods in proposing its deletion does not help the case. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free article. --Carnildo 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete not enough content, can be recreated if necessary when someone has some info to put in article. --Tim Pope 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article has no informative content, nor will it probably ever. --jonasaurus 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dejvid 22:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, describing schools is necessary to the coverage of education. Kappa 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment did Kappa vote twice? I don't think he would, so maybe a someone trying to confuse the vote? Vegaswikian 05:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops yes that was me, I forget I already voted. I'll have to be more careful. At least it shows someone is following the discussion. Kappa 12:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. I think it should have been moved to Sacred Heart School of Halifax, however, as the school website titles it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SimonP has a good point. This was supposed to be a vote on Sacred Heart School, which is a dab now. I vote keep to the dab page as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the notable schools by this name have been found, and given better article names anyway. -Splash 23:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. •Zhatt• 23:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Immaculate Conception School.

  Why the redirect to that school?Gateman1997 00:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep on building a better Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons above. Vegaswikian 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand disambig page. - SimonP 12:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Salsb 20:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Jonathunder 02:43, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Keep Important and notable. Unfocused 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. By the way, you're really not supposed to move articles while a VfD is underway. -- Visviva 11:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: yet again Aaron plays his silly trick of referring to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete and piping the link so that it appears to refer to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes Tony, I was trying to fool those people who either didn't know how to scroll up or would not wonder what that extra text was about. I would have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for those meddling kids! - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • One has to wonder why you so desperately wish to obscure the anchor tag however. It makes it appear that you wish for someone to read your rationale and, not clicking the link, believe that Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments shows why this school should be deleted, when, in fact, it shows both sides of the argument. Surely, that is not what you intend but it is how it appears. I agree, btw, that those in favour should anchor their link as well. Perhaps the arguments page should be split into 2 sub-pages. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would be a good idea to split up the arguments just because Aaron is engaging in abusive and dishonest editing. Let's leave him to it and refuse to let his disgraceful behavior influence the disposition of the page, which is currently perfectly fine. If someone were to transform the headings into unanchored bolds, however, I would not oppose this. This would cause all links to go to the page, in the absence of "#Keep" and "#Delete" anchors. Aaron was not the first person to engage in abusive linking to that page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • DoubleBlue, I'd like to draw attention to your vote, and the link provided: verifiable and NPOV which actually points to Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No. Rather than assuming that you're being devious, I'll keep faith. I'd secondly like to draw your attention to the manner in which Tony has comported himself with regards to editing my votes. I've listed the diffs and made notes on Tony's talk page. I've also shot my mouth off a little there, but being called a "liar", "disgraceful", and "dishonest" tends to piss people off. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Replied on talk page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real place --malathion ^talk 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all real places are notable. This one isn't. CDThieme 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and major expand. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Keep. I'm uncertain whether this is a vote on Sacred Heart School or Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The former is a useful disambiguation page, and the latter is a useful stub on a verifiable topic. Neither of them causes problems for Wikipedia. I see no reason to delete them. Factitious 22:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Factitious. arj 21:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Now not ambigious, but still no particuler indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. No Account 00:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "William John Hagan"

Vanity Page Lcuff 02:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN/Vanity. --Ragib 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Also, appears to be a cut and paste from his blog, for which copyright status is unknown. I assume that subject is the author, which brings up questions about notability. --Alan Au 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Same old same old. --Misterwindupbird 10:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/Vanity. Tearlach 10:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy vanity/cvcruft. --Etacar11 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: CV vanity, barbarously named (showing that the contributor didn't bother to read any articles). Geogre 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN/vanity/formatting yadda yadda. JDoorjam 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. --jonasaurus 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 08:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. --Apyule 07:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ogdru_Jahad

Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No worse than other cruft, and article seems to be reasonable. --Alan Au 04:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have 4,000 words on the Romulans, why stop there? I have only read a little Hellboy so I am uncertain as to how spoileriffic this is, but it might need a plot-elements revealed warning. Eldereft 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hellboy. Doesn't even need to be a VfD. Proto t c 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 10:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 12:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main behind-the-scenes villains in Hellboy. Considering the amount of fourth-stringers from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, this is a lot more important storywise. --Pc13 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per above. --jonasaurus 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• True enough, and it's better than giving them each an individual entry. Keep. DS 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kellan fabjance

Vanity. --malathion ^talk 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. I was going to tag it as a speedy under WP:CSD A7. This is an elementary school ([8]) "novelist" vanity article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per TenOfAllTrades. Ken 02:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy: as above. --Ragib 02:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• A7 Speedy. While the subject is claimed to be a famous novellist and web designer, no evidence is presented for either statement. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy As per above. --jonasaurus 21:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kidron

Completing nomination begun by DragonflySixtyseven. If this is a real place, it should be kept (but add enough text so that the pics don't overwhelm the thing). -- BD2412 ^talk 02:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• As I meant to say before I wound up napping at the computer, perhaps we could use an article on Kidron, but this isn't it. And are those photos copyvio?DS 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Photos are copyvios and have been tagged as such. Thanks for the heads up. --Alan Au 04:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• The Kidron Valley (or Qidron) is unquestionably a real place, near Jerusalem and featuring significantly in the Bible. Astonished that there isn't an article already. Keep but rewrite significantly. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten as a stub. Probably deserves a rename at some stage. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "This isn't it". This, on the other hand, is. Keep as rewritten.DS 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Make sure rewrite stands. --jonasaurus 21:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Already listed. -Splash 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Softscout

Advertising,nn-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per BMIComp. --Alan Au 04:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, it's a copyvio. -- Mwanner 22:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. JeremyA (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asmariational

Not notable neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 because of ongoing copyvio investigation and lack of valid votes in this discussion. The only vote that I see here that I can count is Capitalistroadster's.

If not for the copyvio, I would have extended discussion. If it survives WP:CP, I will probably relist. Somebody remind me should I forget. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cass_V._Cibelli

vanity, definite copyvio, not notable (win the election first) 128.112.24.137 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Page listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems as copyvio from [9]. --Alan Au 04:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

speedy keep, high-profile race in Westchester. Voters have a right to find out information about the candidates. This makes it easier for them to do so.

• Above unsigned comment is by the same person who created the article [10]. 128.112.24.137 04:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

speedy keep, I wrote the biography, posted it on the website and hold the exclusive right to use it. There is no copyright violation here. By posting the biography on this page I authorized it's use on this page.

• Hi, 68.161.66.112 (again.) First of all, there is no such thing as "speedy keep." Secondly, please sign your remarks by putting 4 ~s afterwards. Thirdly, you claim that this is a "high-profile race" in Westchester. The only mention of "Cass Cibelli" that I could find in the news was a two sentence, second-paragraph mention in an online-only newspaper [11]. Finally, if you are the person who wrote the promotional biography on Cibelli's website, then it is inappropriate for you to copy and paste this to create the page on Wikipedia. (The content you posted, whether you own it or not, is not "neutral" ("NPOV" in the parlance.) It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the article is not deleted, that content will be, by me or someone else.) 128.112.24.137 05:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep is a common vote on VfD. It is essentially equivalent to voting to de-list, because the nomination is brazenly inappropriate. -- Visviva 12:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyvio on non-notable candidate. A search for that name achieved nil results on Google News [12] or Topix.net [13] suggesting he is not that high profile in terms of newsworthiness. BTW, the VfD notice was missing but I restored it. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We already have a process for resolving copyvio. VfD is not it.
  • Comment. The argument for VfD is that the person is not-notable. There is an additional copyvio issue, which in part arises from the fact that the subject is sufficiently non-notable that there is no other source of information on him. Sdedeo 23:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). This one is very difficult, because there are a number of votes from users with very low edit counts. In particular the nomination is by an anonymous user, and the two last keep votes are both from users whos' votes are among their earliest edits. Nonetheless, all these users appear to have been making legitimate edits as well, and all were created before this VFD started. Because of this, and also with the "when in doubt, don't delete"-rule in mind, I will accept all the votes. The main concern here has been verifiability, I will therefore add a {{verify}}-tag on the article. If no verification is provided, the article may well be listed on VFD again in the near future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twisting_the_Cow

probable hoax; google returns only a few mentions (less than a page) all of which are dubious touristic sites. 128.112.24.137 03:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Twisting the Cow is not a hoax. I actually first read about it in a reliable, factual, book which I trust (Bloody Scotland, Horrible Histories series). In fact, I think most of the webpages are almost directly plagiaristic copies of the book. Hey, it's not my fault the Scots like such strange things (haggis) ;) ! If you don't believe the book, I guess the only way to prove it not a hoax is to find the results from the Invergarry Games of 1820. I also just realized that I need to change it from "Twisting the Cow" to "Twisting the cow". How do I rename a wikipedia page?Confusius 03:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is an actual event that existed in the 19th Century. See [14]. You don't need pages of Google hits for something to be legitimate. This does need expansion and a proper stub tag, however. 23skidoo 04:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well... okaaay. Your HTML reference also refers as its source back to the same book that Confusius remembers seeing it in, a book which also tells you how to "how to terrify a tourist with gory Scottish ghost". I guess I'm just not convinced it's anything other than an urban legend that happened to appear in a children's book (ages 8 and up!) 128.112.24.137 04:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Would have voted to Keep and expand, except that I'm unable to verify beyond the same Google reference to the tourism book cited above. --Alan Au 04:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Firm delete unless there is independant proof (piossibly from a resident of Invergarry) that anything like this ever happend -- which I take leave to doubt. --Simon Cursitor 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independantly verified. --Carnildo 19:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I believe this is the stuff of urban legend (see snopes.com). --jonasaurus 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the main thing that we're trying to decide here isn't whether to delete it or not, but whether it's an urban legend or not. If it's not, then keep the page. If it is, keep the page but categorize it as an urban legend. Confusius 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have heard several accounts in my time of such an event taking place in the past in Scotland. It's not one of the more common traditions, but if you look beyond google there's enough evidence to say that, urban legand or real event, it's just about worthy of a mention Zaw061 14:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP -- It's interesting enough. Hujjat 09:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. If someone would like to merge it, feel free to be bold. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reffy

I hate spammers too, but to be kept the article should be encyclopedic, not ranty. 128.112.24.137 03:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Improve the article if it's not good enough, don't delete it. KeithD 07:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. I have no problem listing scumware as such, and noting common tricks of the trade. We already have quite a nice article on Bonzi Buddy, that one, IMHO, should be listed in scumware but is probably notorious enough to merit its own article. Eldereft 08:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to scumware, reluctantly. -Splash 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blondphilia

Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Wikibofh 03:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete <drini ☎> 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. --jonasaurus 21:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The proper Greek would be xanthophilia (ξανθοφιλία). It's actually the name of a disease where you see yellow; Vincent van Gogh reportedly had it. --Jpbrenna 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fake word EdwinHJ | Talk 22:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Avalon Bound 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Valhallia 11:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Voice Wireless

NN, possibly advertising-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'll go so far as to propose this as a spam speedy delete. Fire Star 03:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete <drini ☎> 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clear advertising. Tobycat 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is an advertisment. --jonasaurus 21:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was agree with speedy. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah_W._Brannon

actually, Sarah Weatherly Brannon did not win the Nobel Prize at 29. (Fake article) 128.112.24.137 03:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An astrophysicist winning the Nobel Prize for medicine would be interesting cross-pollination but it is an obvious hoax. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It talks about a speech in December 2005...obviously it's hard to take any of this seriously. Can it be speedied? --Etacar11 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• I see no reasons why it shouldn't be a sure candidate for speedy delete because of patent nonsense, but I am not absolutely sure. If I am making a mistake in adding the db, would a more experienced Wikipedian please tell me? --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly_N._Hay

By definition, not more notable than the average college professor. 128.112.24.137 03:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. PubMed has one article by a BN Hay.
• Delete. Completely non-notable, no significant research contribution. Fawcett5 13:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject is an average professor. -- Mwanner 22:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:PROF, and is probably speediable — it's a resume not an "assertion of note". I see it has a speedy tag on it already, which is good. -Splash 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sounds about as notable as my doctor when I lived in Boston. --Etacar11 00:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy_Turtle

Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am unsure whether this is an ad or a joke. Eldereft 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I guess the comic is at least real, as it's sold on CafePress. Doesn't seem notable though. "Happy Turtle" googles well, but all results seem to be unrelated to whatever this is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Happy Turtle: The Delete Vote. Happy Turtle gets deleted as non-notable by evil Wikipedians. He remains happy. -Splash 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an advertisement. - Sempron 10:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. -Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thracia_Cho-Leem

Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Nateji77 05:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Nateji77. Cyclone49 10:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the merge and redirect. Since neither of those activities requires a VfD, I've gone ahead and done that. Tobycat 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I left the VfD tag up since that's only supposed to be removed by an admin after the closing of a vote.Tobycat 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. --Maru 02:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 A7. Essjay · Talk 10:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shane_Mcmullen

Shane McMullen is being picked on by his friends in Oz. 128.112.24.137 03:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied. CJCurrie 04:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EDK

The company appears to be real, but unencyclopedic. Probably just advertising. CJCurrie 04:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising, and not notable. -- Egil 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this entity lacks notability and qualifies for deletion. Tobycat 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. --jonasaurus 21:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, Advert. -- Mwanner 22:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Already has cleanup tag. I added some stub-sorts. -Splash 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher_Rush

not notable 128.112.24.137 04:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Weak keep. Mr. Rush may actually be a relevant artist but without some more information the article serves no purpose. Collabi 06:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote, persuaded by the arugments below: even a nearly empty stub like ths can invite more information from readers. Collabi 11:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything relevant is already in the redirect from Black Lotus article. Eldereft 08:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in addition to the artist, there's a reasonably famous author by that name. Don't remember the name of his book, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Found it: [15] Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable game artist, vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 16:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• For once I agree with Kappa: Keep and add the cleanup tag. If after a while no one has supplied any more information, I'll support a VfD at that point. Nandesuka 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete not enough content, can be recreated if necessary when someone has some info to put in article.--Tim Pope 19:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be interesting to see how this expands. Is it a practice to delete stubs on notable people? Hall Monitor 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My concern is just that there isn't even enough information here to constitute a stub. With this little information it's just basically a page placeholding his name. Collabi 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep notable guy, but the article sucks.  Grue  19:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Big Brother. – malathion ^talk 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric_Ouellette

Is there going to be a page for every single contestant in every single "Big Brother" sequel or spin-off? 128.112.24.137 04:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, why not? Dmn / Դմն 12:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most game-show and reality contestants unless otherwise notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Should be a redirect to the appropriate series of Big Brother. Proto t c 14:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother, it looks like all of the series are on the same page. And please, someone remove the red links from the 8th or 9th place finishers, they really aren't notable. 1st-3rd I don't have a problem with, but after that it's like have a page for every contestant on Jeopardy!. --Icelight 17:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the appropriate Big Brother article. --Carnildo 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother. There's no need to splinter the information about that game show into multiple sub articles about each player. If information can be aggregated then it probably should be. Tobycat 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother. Not notable outside the context of the programme in question. Lord Bob 22:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother. No need for sub. --Maotx 22:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (which needs dab'ing urgently). -Splash 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Create a single page called Big Brother USA contestants and have a description of each player there. The Big Brother (USA TV series) is big enough so we should not try to put descriptions of each player there. Paul99 00:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Crimson Summer Interns

Harvard Crimson Headline: Yalies Make Spoof Page 128.112.24.137 04:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Funny, but cruel (and unencyclopedic). Much like this site[16]. As a Cambridge resident, I probably shouldn't say this, but that's pretty good. Hey annonymous, you look like you've made some nice edits/noms for VfD. Consider registering? -Sunglasses at night 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally did. Sdedeo 05:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODNS. Hatred of Harvard equals love of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --Salleman 11:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For clarity, do you mean "copy to BJAODN and keep", or "copy to BJAODN and delete"? -Splash 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The latter. Isn't that standard for "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense"? --Salleman 01:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It does, but we had a bit of a storm about this particular way of voting a couple of days ago; there is at least one admin who sometime interprets BJAODN as a possible keep. -Splash 02:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Just Delete. Does not rise to the standard of BJAODNS. -- Mwanner 22:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. -Splash 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke but not that funny. --Etacar11 00:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 ^talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick_Koudis

vanity, creator of article shares name with subject; no case for notability. 128.112.24.137 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. Nateji77 05:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. The fact that it's created by a user named "Koudis" makes it a pretty obvious case. As for notability, "Nick Koudis" gets 163 unique Google hits and the website referenced has no Alexa rank at all! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.
  • Alexa rank is, as usual, no use for determining whether an individual is notable; we're not about to delete Marvin Minsky's entry just because only a few AI geeks ever visit his website.
  • We also don't delete biographical entries as vanity solely because they're created by the subject.
  • Nick Koudis is verifiable as a charter photographer for the stock library Getty Images, and his photographs are widely used. I see photo credits for Nick Koudis online at the following sites, and I didn't have to look hard:
    • Arsin Corporation, which does work for BEA, AT&T, Bank of America, and others
    • Discovery Channel
    • California Vistas website produced by McGraw-Hill
  • Could I find more? Easily, but that is enough to establish notability. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep. Notable, but messy. I recognize most of those ads. RasputinAXP 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• I don't have too much trouble on the notability score, but the article reeks of vanity. And is anyone besides me worried about the fair use claim on those images? In any case, some of the Keep voters ought to take on a major cleanup of this piece. -- Mwanner 23:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• As author and copyright holder of all the images, I can vouch for the fair use claim. I also would like to point out, that although I did post the article about my own work, it is unbiased and factual. --Nick 23:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleaned up the picture section a bit. Is vanity grounds for deletion if it is notable and the info is factual? I don't think it should be. Henny Clugman 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Voter has 2 edits, both to this VfD --Allen3 ^talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • You're right-- although vanity is often cited in VfD discussions, it really shouldn't, of itself, be grounds for deletion: it's the notability that matters. "Vanity" is really a not very apt shorthand for a problem with the style of writing-- it feels like a puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry. I'll make a stab at a re-write. I'm still worried about the copyright issues, though. The AMEX and Wrigley images are no problem? -- Mwanner 13:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - awards and Getty association speak to notability. Barnabypage 13:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Vote

Delete non-notable photographer vanity. Gets 130 unique Googles and not all are him (and some are ads). He "...captures what is inside the subject, almost making their aura visible." -Splash 05:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless these "worldwide" magazines are identified (and they don't consist of such titles as Non-notable Photographer Weekly); looks like bog-standard vanity. Flowerparty ^talk 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Would not object to a speedy. His pictures aren't anything special, either. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete From his website bio it looks like he has been moderately successful in his profession, but that does not equate to notability. Tobycat 20:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Unless he was written ABOUT in those magazines for being a photographer. --Etacar11 01:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transmutalism

NN nonsense, or just something highly notable that I have never heard of? If the former then delete JeremyA (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. All the relevant terms only get a single Google hit, or maybe two. -Splash 05:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely nonsense. No evidence that this is a well-known pseudoscience. ManoaChild 05:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, almost patent, might even be speedied. --DrTorstenHenning 11:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds a bit like transhumanist spirituality with quasi-magical-religious overtones.[17] Delete as original research. — RJH 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just random academic terms strung together in the manner of the Isis hoax. Collabi 21:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liquivores

"Liquivore" got me 8 unique google hits. Maybe something from fiction, but if so, a pretty minor thing. Any sci-fi themed thing that only gets 8 hits is miniscule (hell, typing "darth" and then 4 random letters would probably yield more hits). I guess it has something to do with Alien Planet? Maybe a merge somewhere, but I think deletion is probably preferable. -R. fiend 05:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The description almost makes sense, but a legitimate term would have a lot more Google hits. ManoaChild 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The google hits themselves are obscure. Not a real word and not widely used in fiction. Tobycat 06:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete There really should be a term for that method of feeding, (in which case it would make sense as a redirect) but I can't seem to find it.

note: above vote was by Icelight

• Delete. BTW, you're right: I typed darth skie into google and got 10,000 hits...:) humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neat. And darth plog got me 584, though I'm not sure these count as "random" exactly. And both drop down to 1 if quotes are used (but even 1 real hit is a bit surprising). -R. fiend 02:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure there's a technical term for this feeding method, but this isn't it. --Carnildo 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Fire Star 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sideling

Delete. I am unclear on whether copyvio extends to album summaries from Amazon. In any case, this article is mere promotional blurb and is not an article. We should start over. -Splash 05:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if the content is a copyvio, otherwise Move to Slideling which was the title originally intended by the author, as noted in the article. Tobycat 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't move: when someone deigns to write a proper article on the album they might as well start from scratch. This is just a Rolling Stone excerpt that's been copied on to Amazon and cut+pasted here, and thus presumably does constitute copyvio. Flowerparty ^talk 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless unless rewritten. --Etacar11 01:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awesomeness

• Delete. Glenford 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

non-notable, just silly Sean Black 05:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom K1Bond007 05:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A drinking game that was invented in "the summer of 2005". Article written by "a charter member". Vanity. ManoaChild 05:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Meets several criteria for deletion: nonencyclopedic, not notable, vanity. Tobycat 06:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry Guys, I mean no Offence. I thought this might be a touchy subject. I honestly am not just placing this on the web for myself. My group of friends LOVES this game. It is actually quite fun. You should try it. Before I posted this article, I looked at Wikipedia's drinking games article. I thought our game would be a good contribution to the listing but I am not the expert, this is my first addition to Wikipedia. I do not want to do anything to compromise the integrity of the best open-source website on the internet. When I wrote the article, I considered the way it should be presented. Since it is a drinking game, I thought humor would be a good way to render the subject matter into an enjoyable article. I am open to suggestions and am willing to remove names since you guys main complaint about the page is believe that it exist just because I am a vain person. Which I really am not. :Buphoff 07:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please understand that "vanity" is not accusing you of being vain. It's just a comment that several elements of the article seem to be self promoting, if not of yourself, then of your group. In any case, even if written in a more neutral fashion, the article would still fail the notability test and would probably qualify as original research, which is not permitted. Don't feel bad, and don't let this chase you away. If you look around, I guarantee that you will find something that you contribute to. ManoaChild 09:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Userfy everything (esp. the T-shirts) except the rules, clean those up a little, and I would say that it is a valid game. A little silly and a little dangerous, but valid nonetheless. Eldereft 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity, ne; perhaps {{userfy}}? Lectonar 10:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable. Fun to read, but not Wikipedia-material. KevinGovaerts 11:25:28, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. -R. fiend 12:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and images: vanity, non-notable, neologism, original research, unverifiable, etc. --Carnildo 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though the article is fun to read. But Wikipedia is NOT advertizing space. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -Splash 23:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - It's a drinking game. Drinking games links to the rules of other drinking games, so keep it, after removing all the vanity stuff, pointless graphics and attempts to sell T-shirts Tonywalton 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Interesting article, but is original reasearch and not notable. Maybe it could be transwikied somewhere? --Apyule 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the precedent set by keeping this would be a poor one. Paul 17:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete XXXXX pointless Super Saiyan Plough 06:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was shower with speedy deletion. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jizmism

Patent Nonsense User:XD 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to speedy this. Binadot 04:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT Section 1.3.1 - No Original Research. Fabrication does not belong on Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of this on a Learning Channel documentery once. First I've heard of it since. --172.135.196.239 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe even speedy. Zero google hits, hoax. Punkmorten 12:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. Honestly, people. Yelyos 13:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NBOT

Vanity article, non-notable group EdwinHJ | Talk 05:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable vanity. Tobycat 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete Notable to at least one community of 754 registered users. http://p205.ezboard.com/bmorphz9768 Musemuffin 06:20, 5 August 2005
• Do not delete Notable to another community of dozens of registered users. http://www.aninews.tk MattManic7325 15:53, 5 August 2005 (User's first edit. Contribs)
• Do not delete Notable to a community of 754 users. http://p205.ezboard.com/bmorphz9768 Laura 2:36, 5 August 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.77.64 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 August 2005
• Do not delete Notable to at least one community of 754 registered users. http://p205.ezboard.com/bmorphz9768 John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.128.14 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 August 2005
• Do not delete Notable to at least one community of 754 registered users. http://p205.ezboard.com/bmorphz9768 Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.137.178.88 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 August 2005
• Delete, not notable.Gateman1997 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.Sdedeo 06:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Section 1.4.2, self-promotion. The Literate Engineer 07:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable self promotion. The sock (or meat) puppets also support this. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete - 754 users are all non-notable. FCYTravis 08:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Clean. The robot might be encyclopoediable. Eldereft 08:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Small forum populated by members of the hosiery community. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, and the sockpuppets don't help. It's possible that a real article might be made about the robot, but let's delete this one first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor, non-notable group. --Carnildo 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. The sockpuppets persuade me if there was any doubt. -Splash 23:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity MicahMN | Talk 01:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Longhair. —Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Bartol

non-notable high school band conductor, vanity Sdedeo 06:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

then why does the school have an entry? it is not famous in anywayAndrew D White 06:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• good question. There is a debate on wikipedia as to whether or not high schools should have entries without being otherwise "notable." But please don't go creating pages for all your high school teachers and friends -- there's no debate on that. Sdedeo 06:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not I simply was noting one of the more famious people from my town I included more of her bio so you can see why I attempted to add this and thought it would be a good additionAndrew D White 06:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Andrew, it's a nice impulse, but please read the criteria for including biographies of people first. Sdedeo 06:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I could argue that most of the living people here do not fall in all these categories and that wouldnt make me any more right or wrong than the people who included them maby i should mave a call to delete 30% of the bios here because they are not famous in my part of the world. In defense of this articel though, I would say that she qualifies for: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Andrew D White 07:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also added another reason for the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" point (these can all be verfied throught the Newspaper"The Daily Item" which is published in Sunbury, PA Andrew D White 07:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I am in a more civil mood now an I am open to discuessing this. It may have at first looked like a vanity page but that is due to how I write (I save a lot to ensure that hardware failrure at my end will not end up with the loss of hours of work which cannot be recovered. Andrew D White 07:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. Eldereft 09:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Eldereft. --DrTorstenHenning 11:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How mutch more notibalit do you want? I am not sure how many more of her notiable events I can publish without it being orrigional research like training some of the members of Breaking Benjamin.(not sure if that even made into a newspaper) Andrew D White 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy a high-school chorus conductor? Come on. Note to author: I assume your intentions are good, but please, please pick more realistic article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had a really good high school chorus director, too (we did Christmas programs with the Philadelphia Orchestra). But no, sorry. Get some perspective, Andrew: it just isn't encyclopedic. -- Mwanner 23:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I will agree to this Only if you all stop the character assiniation. I dont like it when people make personal attacks on me. Andrew D White 23:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

(I am refering mostly to the last two comments)Andrew D White 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible. NN. --Etacar11 01:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that is qualifies for speedy deletion due to it having a remote plasuablity. "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Andrew D White 01:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- as above. nn-bio applies, surely? Tonywalton 23:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subtle touches of red

vanity, refers to a self-published book of poems Sdedeo 06:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• 23 Google hits for "Subtle touches of red", none of which refer to poetry. Delete. ral315 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to scarce google hits, neither the book nor the author show up on Amazon. A book/author of any notability would surely show up on at least one. Good nomination.Tobycat 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Tobycat. -Splash 23:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn poet vanity. --Etacar11 01:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments Punkmorten 08:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT a how-to guide for would-be experimenters in things that blow your head off if you're not careful. FCYTravis 08:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PICRIC ACID

PICRIC ACID IS VERY SCARY and also Wikipedia is not a textbook/cookbook Sdedeo 06:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete : Article Picric Acid already exists. Much more informative and constructive than this one.
• Delete Dupe of Picric Acid, only less intelligible. Collabi 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omega seamaster

advertisement Sdedeo 06:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• An article on James Bond's watch? Now I've seen everything. Delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ral315 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Brands that appear in film/television are part of a marketing strategy called product placement. In other words: advertising. Articles asserting notabilility for a product due to their appearance in a film are only propagating the advertising. In my view there need to be other notable factors to justify an article like this. Tobycat 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Omega Watches. This is a real watch, not just one found in a James Bond movie. Hell you can buy one from Amazon [18] if you have the money. Maybe not enough information for it's own article, but notable to mention somewhere. K1Bond007 21:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W.W._Smith

lengthy article about the founder of a rural Canadian insurance firm, which currently has a staff of nine: [19]. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 06:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If he really was a driving force behind the establishment of a Provincial Park, that should establish some kind of notability. The article needs cleanup to become truly encyclopedic, though. --DrTorstenHenning 11:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Saskatchewan MLAs are notable. --YUL89YYZ 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. According to the article he served as a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, which makes him worthy of inclusion. Of greater concern is that parts of it seem to be based on an interview with his grandson, which is original research. - SimonP 12:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• K, but rename and remove POV. Fawcett5 13:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article indicates he was much more than a businessman.--NormanEinstein 15:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. MLA and of some interest in the early history of Swift Current. Also, the article does not seems to rely on an OR interview with grandson but rather this insurance industry magazine article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability appears to be established within the article. Hall Monitor 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to William Wensley Smith and Clean it up. Zhatt 23:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO as a member of a provincial legislature. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. CJCurrie 01:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there has been fairly wide consensus that MLAs are notable. - Jord 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ewok4000

Tagged for speedy, but I don't see it. Looks like vanity, but I'll submit it to the community; there seeems to be a strong assertion of notability. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm voting Delete because I feel the article is unverified, therefore I am dubious of it's veracity. If citations are provided, I will re-consider my vote. EvilPhoenix talk 07:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Although we have an Anonymous Coward (I'm pretty impressed by our coverage of Slashdot here), this seems to be much less notable. CanadianCaesar 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't this just someone's online moniker? Hell, you've gotta have a really cool moniker before you get a Wikipedia article. Like, for example Splash. (PS. This was pointed out to me by way of insulting me in exchange for a delete vote a while back, so I can't really claim the credit). -Splash 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Eekelaar

Tagged for speedy as vanity, but I see a real assertion of notability in the list of honors and publications. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep Real prominence in specific field (Family Law) unlikely to be vanity per se (individual known to be not a web person!) and significant in academic circles stated. Honours and publications are notable.--Silver149 07:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment John Eekelaar deserves an article. This information is factual. And I verified it easily - because it's close enough to a copy of his bio at Oxford University's law school that I wish I knew the copyvio policy better. The Literate Engineer 07:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability asserted, per The Literate Engineer. Re: Copyvio: If there is a decent changing of the wording, I would say it's ok, but if it is an extremely close match, it is a copyvio. EvilPhoenix talk 07:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable legal academic. Capitalistroadster 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've cleaned up a bit, may still need some work. Keep. Proto t c 11:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, his bio says he's a Fellow of the British Academy which is good enough for me. -Splash 23:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Macy

Minor automotive photographer, with gushy bio. Delete. Calton | Talk 06:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 07:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate journalist/photographer. Kappa 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• The article sucks, but appearing on Fifth Gear is enough to warrant a keep IMHO. Nandesuka 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete random appearance on a poor spinoff TV programme (especially on five) isn't enough. Hell, he's so non-notable we have to go all the way back to the age of 4 to try to invent some. -Splash 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we corrected the gushy/vanity tone of the article, there wouldn't be anything to write. Nothing notable enough (yet). -JJLeahy 00:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this one is quite possible to rewrite into NPOV. arj 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Sumner

Minor-league digital-video filmmaker & wannabe professional photographer. Calton | Talk 06:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 07:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He might become notable someday, but he's not there yet. Nandesuka 18:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This was falsely A7 speedied. Restored. I'd normally leave it at that but I noticed that there was an ongoing VfD when it was falsely speedied. Please continue. No vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Uprising

Nominated for deletion because I judge this to be advertising, and as such it's a violation of Section 1.4.3 of WP:NOT The Literate Engineer 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. EvilPhoenix talk 07:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Author's Response
I personally do not see how this is advertising, as, unless someone hits the page using "Random article" (and what are the chances of that?), they aren't going to stumble upon the page without actually looking for more information about the game itself.

Screenshots and the website for the game are due out in just a couple of weeks, and it is only a couple of months before the game makes its debut.

You say that Wikipedia is not a "Crystal Ball," and yet there are tons of pages about upcoming movie, music, and game releases. The only reason you are against my example of it is because I come from a very small, independent game company, which doesn't give me the same kind of voice.

I've had the same problem getting information about the game published on game websites--no one believes me. Yet this game has been in development for over a year, and is very far from an amateur attempt at an MMORPG. We have a rather large and fully capable team of coders, designers, modelers, and writers who have given enormous quantities of their time over the past year making this project a reality.

Delete it if you must, it'll just be recreated again when the game comes out this winter. Instead of trying to destroy every attempt at deleting every page that might be some kind of indirect advertisement, just have some trust, for once, and let the information about the game be out there for your audience to see.

That's all I'll say, and if you, the editors, still are not convinced, you are more than welcome to delete the page. End of (unsigned) author's response

• Delete. Advertising, crystal ball, 'nuff said. --DrTorstenHenning 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Second Author Response I have saved a copy of the article in .odt form on my computer, so feel free to delete it now. However, I still think that all of you are being absolutely ridiculous, not to mention completely hypocritical. The only reason I'm being treated this way is because I represent such a small game studio! Frag 11:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not relevant in the gaming world (yet). Good luck with the project, though. KevinGovaerts 14:32:11, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Further, the lack of a website makes this unverifiable. --Carnildo 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - You've not yet completed one project. No one has seen any of your work. When it's released, then maybe the article can be related. Also, the attitude taken by Frag seems very unprofessional for an actual studio. A small game studio can have a wikipedia article, after they have proven themselves, see Introversion Software. - Hahnchen 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as unintelligible nonsense, potential hoax. WPCR is a real radio station, but it's in New Hampshire, not Nashville. FCYTravis 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WPCR

Radio station that does not assert any kind of regional notability. It's also practically illegible. EvilPhoenix talk 07:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this trivia dump until someone writes a real article. "a piano music radio station that plays piano music." Gazpacho 17:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KjellFakta

This is advertising for a feature of a chain of electronics stores in Sweden, Kjell & Company, which also has an article. I have asked for input about Kjell & Company at the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board and will put off nominating that one for a while. Uppland 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that this is non-notable corporate advertising. The content was blanked. I will restore for the vote.Tobycat 21:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no need to do that. WP:CSD G7 allows for the page to be speedily deleted if the author requests deletion, and blanking is usually taken as such a request (provided there have been no other substantive edits). Keeping it here just makes 5 days of bureaucracy. -Splash 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Author blanked article. -Splash 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Kill advertising quick, please. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Gary

The article is for something that is not of enough importance to have its own article, it should be deleted or merged with the main spongebob article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2005

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once the DVD is on the market, and if someone finds enough material on it for a lengthy article still meeting WP standards, a page of its own might be OK. --DrTorstenHenning 11:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If you think it can be merged, then rather than put it on vfd, be bold and merge it straight away. But in this case, the quality is so bad that it is probably best to just put it out of its misery! Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinski

Marked as vanity speedy, but it's a band. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I expanded and moved the article about Kinski (band) and made Kinski a disambig page. Punkmorten 13:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty ^talk 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Flowerparty, noted they meet at least two criteria of WP:MUSIC having five albums released including two on Sub Pop and having completed a number of tours. See their Allmusic.com article. [20] Capitalistroadster 01:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. --Etacar11 01:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded the article further so that it is now longer a stub. Thanks to Punkmorten for his work. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – malathion ^talk 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Shi-tones

Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. An admin erroneously deleted the article after it was placed on VfD. I have asked him to undelete it so that VfD can proceed. Pburka 00:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • There was nothing erroneous about it - I ran across it and deleted it as being a very short article with no claim to notability and no encyclopedic context. FCYTravis 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --08:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager One (band)

Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 07:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Well, they do have an allmusic page here. This reports that they have released two albums, which might qualify them under WP:MUSIC. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the label, Loveless Records, fits the description "more important indie label". Their homepage, here doesn't seem to indicate that they have a "roster of performers, many of which are notable". That is, I couldn't find a page of ours on any of their other bands, which should exist for a really notable band, i.e. one which would make the label itself notable. I'm willing to be proven otherwise, but that's my position for now. --Icelight 18:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Icelight unless the majorness of their label is established. -Splash 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Allmusic.com has an lengthy article on these guys suggesting that they consider that these guys are notable. see Allmusic.com article [21] Capitalistroadster 01:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it doesn't say they did anything much. -Splash 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep might just be above the bar. --Etacar11 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Have expanded the article. Their Loveless records page shows that they have attracted a fair amount of attention from the media covering the independent music scene see [22]. A Yahoo audio search shows that they have a number of tunes available from commercial download sites such as iTunes and Napster see [23]

No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense hoax or no claim to notability, whichever you prefer. Good catch, Szyslak. FCYTravis 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie "Centrino" Forgacs

No Google hits for "eddie "centrino" forgacs" or eddie centrino forgacs. I don't know about the rest of you, but I smell a hoax. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China History Forum

Vanity, and sounds awfully like advertising. Forum isn't even big. x42bn6 08:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure whether to delete or keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but delete some sections that are advertising the website, and clean it up. X42bn6 says the forum isn't big, but it is big. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absent some evidence of notability. Does not meet the proposed criteria of WP:WEB. -- Visviva 05:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm a member so I'm not voting. But let me give a basic history of this page: It was first created by someone who wasn't too happy about the forum's administration, and the POV bias in the first rendition of the article was considerable. However, certain individuals from the forum then came in and expanded upon the article, which definitely made it more POV - but the notability... has yet to be seen. Do what you will. (As an aside, this is definitely the most active Chinese-history forum around...) -Hmib 06:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audacious

An evangelical Christian youth event in Britain; there are thousands of these around the world. Doesn't seem notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline advert, no criteria for notablity met (3000 people is not a lot by megachurch standards.) Sdedeo 09:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

3000 is big for the uk... (Note: Unsigned comment by 82.32.80.168 (talk · contribs); user's first edit.)

Eh, I don't think it's a valid arguement, but Bonus Stage only recieves 2000-3000 hits a week. Note: Timestamp? Sorry, I'm no good at Wiki'ing --82.33.194.36 09:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standards of measure in the Copper Age

Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Modern West etc yesterday. Additionally, the entire idea of comparing these units in a table by mm equivalent is at fault. Some of these units were very precise, some were quite variable and uncertain over times. Finally, these units are already covered by Ancient weights and measures and sub-articles, to the degree these articles have survived the contributions of this same anon. Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being his janitor. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd suggest leaving a redirect, but it's unlikely anyone would type that exact phrase in, so just delete. Proto t c 09:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, excellent links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 

updated and under mediation, also as to the linking these pages were all

linked together under ancient weights and measures

which is where they belong

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures

makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.

If you would like to see them compared in their own or contemporary units

as well as mm, why not put that comment on the discussion page?

Most copper age measures are given as multiples of a standard

of which the best surviving example measures 1/2 meter.

As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several

decimals of mm, copper age standards are not precise to decimal mm

or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.

For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary

primary reference to sharing a standard (as with the letter of Nanse}

which was cited on the discussion page for ancient weights and measures)

There are long term investigations of the units involved and the results

are now considered basic historical fact.

In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective

to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",

"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer

histories that have been explored in the literature.

Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological

period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities

and differances much clearer

The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid

as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and

in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with

translations given in English

Comment While unconvinced, I stand in awe of a response written in poetry. --Icelight 18:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Rktect's reponse is incorrect: there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article at all. Nandesuka 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The page in question is the discussion page of

[Ancient_Weights_and_Measures]

• • • When user Egil decided he wanted to rewrite the whole page in a different format
    • to catagorize by cultures rather than by standards I suggested that it was important
    • to keep the comparative aspect of the standards which you could previously see just
    • by scrolling up or down, not changing pages.

• Delete, no useful data other than a list, said list is adequately covered in other articles. Xaa 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect 8/6/05

If you think this table is just a list and adequately covered elsewhere

I'd like to know where you are looking

[edit] How user Egil's massive edit changed the whole nature of the page

First He proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing by culture rather than measure

On his own, over protest, he unilateraly did so

Then he decided to delete all reference to the original version

which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

[edit] Ancient Measures by Culture

• Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures
• Ancient Persian weights and measures
• Ancient Egyptian weights and measures
• Ancient Indus Valley weights and measures
• Ancient Greek weights and measures
• Ancient Roman weights and measures
• Ancient Vedic weights and measures
• Ancient Chinese weights and measures
• Ancient Arabic weights and measures
• Ancient Hebrew weights and measures

Rktect7/31/05

Another way to approach the listing of measures would be to break it up by time and unit

These will eventually compare cultures in a less ethnocentric way (note pre-conquest Americas)

They are a work in progress requiring the names and values of many units be filled in

ideally they would also eventually get their value in increments of their own units.

• Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr
• Standards of measure in the Copper Age
• Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age
• Standards of measure in Iron Age Europe
• Standards of measure in Medieval Europe
• Standards of measure in the Pre Conquest Americas
• Standards of measure in the Medieval East
• Standards of measure in the Modern West

• Delete. A quote from Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures "232. e2 abzu-ta me nam-ta-ba

   233. siraraki-ce3 dijir lagacki-a gu2 mu-un-na-si-si
   234. na4 gen6-na kug la2-e-de3 gi-gur gen6-na gub-bu-de3
   235. jicba-an inim gen6-na kur-kur-ra [cu] ba-an-ja2-ja2-ne" Vegaswikian 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Vegaswikian: You are right, the articles Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures etc in their present form should be axed to. Same author, same problem. The issue with these articles is that once upon a time, there was reasonable content here. As you perhaps may deduct from the above, this is now impossible to maintain. -- Egil 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect 8/6/05 why, in an article discussing sumerian standards of measure, would you

want to delete a cite in the language being discussed which proves the point being made?

I can see that if you don't know a lot about Sumerian standards of measure you might not

be interested but why burn the book that someone else might want to read?

This is a votes-for-deletion page. I have answered you here: User_talk:Rktect#Burning_of_books.3F -- Egil 12:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect 8/7/05

Egil, why won't you respond where others can read your response.

I asked you to tell me what your expertise is

in standards of measure of the copper age

This was your response, with my response to that interleaved

The most revealing part of your objection is as follows

User Egil comment

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning of books?

User Egil comment

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed

by a competant administrator who will probably decide

what to do with the articles based on their overall content.

You have made a number of false statements about them

which a competant administrator will probably pick up.

You have claimed they are original research when the articles

cite sources that are in their fifth printing and

in some cases date back to classical sources.

You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables

You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere

which is far from the case because they are comparative tables

which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit

values on the same page that you removed by putting them

on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them

in a table form for comparison

What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before

you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you

are afraid of discussing their content.

Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of the page

You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing

by culture rather than measure

On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so

Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version

which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

User Egil comment

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

 : rktect 8/7/05 I seriously doubt it will be deleted

as I can see that others are now aware of your activities

User Egil comment

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 : rktect 8/7/05

Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the

votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement

of the administrator what action if any should be taken

particularly when the page is just being created and is still

being actively worked on every day it would be the normal

policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly

polished and perfercted.

• Delete as for the other articles in this series. Ken 13:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with Ken and others. Gene Nygaard 15:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standards of measure in Medieval Europe

Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Additionally, this is utterly broken as a concept because the units were often dramatically different from city to city and from time to time, even in the same country. For anyone interested, see Medieval weights and measures. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Proto t c 09:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, good external links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

updated and under mediation

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Egil claims "this is utterly broken as a concept

because the units were often dramatically different from city to city

and from time to time, even in the same country"

yet its very easy to see by looking at a list of German cities

that these "dramatic differances" are nothing more than a multiple of earlier standards.

Its not always the same multiple or the same standard and

in some cases they have multiple standards but its still reconstructable.

Part of what I am doing is giving the unit and the multiple for comparison

I can go back and compare what Ogilby said about the equivalence in 1607

shortly after Elizabeth changed the statute in 1593 and see that it makes

a difference what the reporters standard is at the time.

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures

makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.

Medieval standards are different than copper age standards

because there are many references to their having been copied from Greek or Roman

units already well established in the popular literature as opposed

to obscure technical publications written in dead languages

so they are much easier to document and much more accessible web sources.

As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several

decimals of mm, medieval standards are not precise to decimal mm

or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.

For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference

to sharing a standard (as with the Roman surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus

who traced the dimensions of local fields back to the standards established

by Claudius Ptolomy as the Romans first entered Germanica

which was cited on the discussion page for ancient weights and measures

There are long term investigations of the units involved and the results

are now considered basic historical fact.

In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective

to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",

"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer

histories that have been explored in the literature.

Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological

period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities

and differances much clearer

The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid

as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and

in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with

translations given in English

• Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Presumably you are aware that you are proposing to delete subsections of a larger page
    • on which the discussion exists at length and that user Egil massively rewrote the
    • entire main page to create the subsections labled by culture rather than by standard
    • so that it couldn't be as easily observed where the similarities were.

• Delete This is a list with zero usable data other than the list entries. A more correct title would have been A list of names of medieval measuring units - though I'd have voted to delete that, too, as being already adequately covered in Medieval weights and measures. ;-) Xaa 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rktect: 8/5/05

If you could provide a list of all the names of medieval measuring units

even for one year out of a period of over a millenia, that would be pretty impressive.

In some standard reference works people have tried to provide such a list by city,

or by country and region or province and then by city, generally focusing on major

periods of redefinition such as Queen Elizabeth's changes to the mile by statute in 1593

or the effect of the Metric system being passed into law in France in 1812.

Klein's "The World of Measurement" is pretty good that way, so are a couple of on-line sites

that compare various definitions of land.

In the standard reference works in which there is an attempt to collect them systematically

giving examples that match a definition, comparision tables are very useful.

I have seen a few attempts in the collection of medieval measures to show

where a measure is geo-commensurate or based on Greek or Roman standards but

in general the effect of Egils massive edit is that it no longer is easy to

compare one set of influences with another in two different kingdoms let alone

in two different periods.

On the Ancient Weights and Measures discussion page when user Egil first proposed this

I put sufficient facts to explain why its not useful to look at weights and measures

in isolation divided up not according to commercial interest but political interest.

The point he seems not to get is that measures define property and commercial interests

are very resistant to having someone change the rules when they are in the middle of

their transactions.

A really good book on this subject is "The Medieval Machine" by Jean Gimpel

• Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standards of measure in Iron Age Europe

Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above Proto t c 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

* Keep, Valuable, uses links to ancient maps and commentaries, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

updated and under mediation

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures

makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.

Iron age standards are different than copper age or medieval standards

because this is the period when the Greek and Roman and for that matter Phoenician

empires are heavily engaged in trade with Europe.

Traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.

Rivers like the Dneiper, Dneister, Danube and Don

led deep into Germanica to connect with rivers like the Oder and Rhine.

As the Greek and Roman traders moved into into Germany well in advance of

any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for

commerce and agriculture.

These Greek and Roman units are already well established in the popular literature

as opposed to obscure technical publications written in dead languages

for copper and iron age units so they are much easier to document

and have much more accessible web sources.

As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several

decimals of mm, iron age standards are not precise to decimal mm

or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.

For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference

to sharing a standard (as with Ptolomy;s geography) which was cited on the

discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term

investigations of the units involved and the results

are now considered basic historical fact.

In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective

to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",

"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer

histories that have been explored in the literature.

Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological

period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities

and differances much clearer

The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid

as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and

in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with

translations given in English

• Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the article has no introduction and no useful information, it's simply a list. Xaa 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr

• Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

updated and under mediation

Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. In this case, various values are filled in. But the entire concept of a table with exact 1/100 mm units is really meaningless. The subject is already covered, as mentioned. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as above. Proto t c 09:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect8/6/05 Perhaps user Egil only sees what he wants to see

This is the table he is refering to, cites are now on the page

The idea is to see where and when standards are changed or converted

by comparison between more specific times and places than "Mesopotamia" or "Egypt"

which are civilizations that span several millenia each

[edit] Table of Unit Comparisons

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures

makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.

Egil says the subject is already covered but that is false

Associating units with cultures makes it appear that every time a new culture arises

it reinvents the wheel and starts over again from scratch with new standards of measure

that have nothing in common with those that went before.

That is clearly not the case as measures are used to define property and people

tend not to like strangers coming around and messing with what's theirs.

The important thing about this period are the letters documenting the desire

to establish common standards between countries which have been placed on

the discussion page where anybody can read them.

In this case in particular I would point out this is a work in progress

since it takes time both to do the data entry and translate the cites

from the original languages.

The standards of the Jemdet Nasr are both similar to and different from

copper age or iron age or medieval standards. In many cases they are better

documented by weights than by land units because this is the period when

the Sumerians first became heavily engaged in trade with Melluha, Makkan,

Dilmun and Egypt and first needed agreed upon international standards

of weights and measures.

Its the period in which the first archaeological and written evidence

of standards appears and in many cases the values of goods and services

are directly related to their standards of measure.

Traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.

Rivers like the Indus, Tigris, Euphrates and Nile connected with the Erythrian Sea

In the case of the Nile by means of overland portages and eventually a canal

As the Sumerian and Hurrian traders moved into Syrio-Anatolia well in advance of

any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for

commerce and agriculture.

These Sumerian units are not always already well established in the popular literature

Sometimes they are found in obscure technical publications written in dead languages

copper and iron age units are easier to document and have much more accessible web sources

so only now are they begining to emerge on line as citable primary sources.

As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several

decimals of mm, Sumerian standards are not precise to decimal mm

or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.

For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference

to sharing a standard (as with the rod of Gudea) which was cited on the

discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term

investigations of the units involved and the results

are now considered basic historical fact.

In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective

to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",

"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer

histories that have been explored in the literature.

Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological

period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities

and differances much clearer

The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid

as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and

in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with

translations given in English

• Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless it's [cleaned up beforehand.] Citations, better introduction, wiki format, etc. Please note: Citations do not go on a talk page or on some other page the user has to click to find, they go on the bottom of the page you have created. Xaa 23:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, beyond salvage. Gene Nygaard 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Diliani

Not notable and not verifiable (no Google hits on Nick or Nicholas Diliani)- Silver149 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-verifiable. Hall Monitor 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete notability not established in the article. Tobycat 21:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor point: the requirement is "assertion", not "establishment" of note. There's a small, but important, difference.-Splash 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I smell a hoax. The article talks about George, but is titled Nick. I get no Googles at all for any of the names in the article. -Splash 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/unverified. And it switches between George and Nick...am I reading that right? --Etacar11 01:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article claims that the subject worked at the U.S. Embassy in Israel in 1914. This seems unlikely, since Israel was not an independent country until 34 years later. In 1914 it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Pburka 16:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - for reasons above; it's a feeble joke. - DavidWBrooks 12:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avarik

Delete Biography of an unknown troll, one of the most vandalized pages. Vanity, not notable. Avarik is a Star Wars character, a google search for Avarik, without "Star Wars", returns only 21 different results. Possible Speedy Deletion KevinGovaerts 10:36:41, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree. <drini ☎> 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hobbs (footballer)

Just forvarding an anon VfD, the reason being not notable. feydey 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Question--it says "Hobbs agreed to a pre-contract with Liverpool and will officially join the club on his seventeenth birthday. He also agreed on a three-year professional contract at Anfield and will be placed into the Liverpool Academy set-up."--Does this mean he doesn't actually see playing time at the highest level games? Is he in the equivalent of the minor leagues, or something like that? Meelar (talk) 13:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • He will probably play in the reserves or u-19 team first (there aren't any 'minor leagues' that he would play in, though some would argue that the Lincoln City team he was signed from could be considered to be - they play in a league 3 levels down from Liverpool) - but I can't actually find anywhere which says he'll be placed into the Academy (the Academy deals with the 'underage teams') set-up. Not to say that that won't happen though. There are other footballers out there with pages that won't get to see first team game time this season - should we delete/vfd their pages too (by the way this is a serious question, not a cutting remark - I'm pretty new to wiki)? Cursive 14:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, professional soccer player. Kappa 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He's played first team football for Lincoln (albeit 3 minutes) and it appears that he is signing a professional contract with Liverpool, rather than a traineeship contract, so he's on the second rung of their squad ladder. Note for Americans: Liverpool are the European Champions, so he's not a young player at some average club. Osomec 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, maybe hoax. Never heard of him.  Grue  19:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definately not a hoax [24], [25], [26], and very unlikely to be vanity - original author has plenty of edits [27]. Cursive 20:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for inclusion, partly because Liverpool is a big club, partly because Arsenal (another big club) were close to signing him. Whilst I personally wouldn't have added an entry for him just yet (why him, and not any of the other young players Liverpool have, for example?), I certainly wouldn't delete the entry now it's here. KeithD 07:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 keep. Nomination was based on a vandalised version of the article, not the actual article; nomination has been withdrawn. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theforce.net

Patent Nonsense Botsie 11:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Botsie 14:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Speedy Keep article was vandalized prior to being listed for VFD. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Punkmorten 13:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Check the history, people. I've reverted the vandalism that made it appear to be nonsense. This VFD should probably be taken down. Yelyos 13:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• *Bashful look*. Thanks for pointing that out; I missed it entirely. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Ooops. Didn't think of checking that. Forgive the newbie. Botsie 14:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NILU

• Our staff? We have specialized? Sounds like advertising to me. The extra hy-phens indicate a cut-and-paste job, so it might even be a copyvio. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : National level research lab. Needs cleanup though. Manik Raina 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but hideously written. I can't find the copyvio I feel it must be on their website, however (though some sentences are copy-pastes, others are not). -Splash 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. As a national reseach institution it is notable but needs wikifying and cleanup of POV. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs major help. --Etacar11 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• KeepMay still need some wikifying, though I have given it a hand, also I think I can make a Norwegian version of it. --Finn Bjørklid 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluecat

seems to be a hoax page. only linked to from List of subcultures, only has one edit in history, nothing remotly similar showing up when googling for related sites -- MilkMiruku 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• But would the cat qualify because it has inherent Bluetooth capability ? --Simon Cursitor 14:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The BlueCat linux distro is written in CamelCase though --MilkMiruku 14:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). For those interested in vote count there were 5 delete, 3 keep, and with no comments which sway me away from the "two-thirds" guideline, this article defaults to keep. There is however a concern about the verifiability of the subject, so it may appear on VFD again unless better sources are provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peg boy

Vandalism, surely Al 14:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• It appears to be semi-genuine [28] [29]. That is, it is a slang dicdef of a boy prostitute, who indeed were forced to sit on pegs (if it isn't an urban legend of course). Quite what this has to do with the Royal Navy however, is beyond me. But I vote delete as a dicdef. A suitable article would go under a more grown up name such as child prostitution. Dunc|☺ 16:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• It is a dicdef currently, but this could certainly developed into a proper article if it's legit as the above links suggest. For example, to what extent was the idea of a pegboy known about or tolerated by the Navy? Did they really sit on pegs or was this a legend? Beyond the scope of a dictionary entry, but fair game for an encyclopaedia. Definite keep from me. Agentsoo 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Agentsoo. I've put cleanup and accuracy tags on the article (that's appropriate while it's on VfD, right?) but this is an encyclopedic subject and should be covered and linked from other articles. -EDM 19:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep as a notable urban legend, at least. The article itself needs work badly. Brighterorange 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. If we can't tell if it's an urban legend or not, we shouldn't have an article on it. --Carnildo 20:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this is almost certaintly an urban legend, which gained new popularity when Dan Savage wrote a column on it. Unless there is a good independent reference, nix it. Sdedeo 20:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The two references provided above are entirely non-authoritative, I'm afraid. Lacking any evidence for this, it's gotta go. -Splash 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iqbal Bano

No meaningful content except external link. Vanity? Psu256 15:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand — apparently a Pakistani ghazal singer of some note.[30][31] — RJH 16:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable. Psu, if you see a page that's only an external link, you can tag it for speedy deletion, if you don't want to expand it. Kappa 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable singer Forbsey 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Allmusic.com notes her as an Indian classical and popular musician which is consistent with profile in Pakistan. Keep and hopefully expand. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Noyes

Editors, you are hereby served a cease and desist letter. Forget about deletion. Every word of the entry is factually true.

Below I enumerate my options: - Trying to Slashdot.org the news of this delete attempt. The /. site is read by a million plus geeks (free-as-in-speech advocated) people daily. They would be grossly enraged about such low in their beloved Wikipedia. - Telling BBC. They are not fond of the US humanwrongs-wise.

• The above comment was made unsigned by 195.70.48.242 (author of the article) ([32]). Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the vfd notice was removed by 195.70.48.242 only 8 minutes after originally put up by 195.92.40.49 (see [33])- I am only bringing this to attention because of the revert of the original vfd, and the above letter, wasn't sure where else to put this. Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Possibly merged to a "prison rape" article. I've been Googling for the story, but haven't found anything in mainstream media yet. Al 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal apparently has a series of stories (e.g., http://www.jsonline.com/news/racine/aug04/252571.asp). Definitely a keep but I'm thinking a Taycheedah Correctional Institution sex scandal article might be more appropriate. Just my humble opinion. Al
    • Of course, blackmail isn't exactly working in this article's favor.
      • Withdrawn. I will abstain.
• Delete — an ugly story, but it doesn't seem notable in and of itself. This VfD discussion needs to be monitored for edits by 195.92.40.49. — RJH 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, an ugly story, but I've found no indication that this is some sort of "international scandal" or even that this woman's case is being used as a reason to get the law changed. Either of those things would make this story (and thus the victim) notable. As an aside, the original author's reaction to this nomination is rather amusing. Neither Slashdot nor the BBC would care about a single article being deleted from Wikipedia, and using this threatening tactic in defense of an article isn't going to change anyone's mind. android79 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Article has merit but is sorely in need of work.Gateman1997 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If the story is false, delete as hoax. If the story is true, delete as not notable. Nasty business indeed, but not encyclopedic nasty business. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN, and blackmail sucks. RasputinAXP 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. And slashdot away, you really think anyone cares? Nandesuka 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wouldn't have bothered voting but amused by the idea that the BBC would care. Agentsoo 17:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an exceptionally notable crime, as it doesn't seem to have attracted extensive media attention. Obviously most rape and murder crimes that don't happen in very large cities will garner at least some notice in local papers. --Icelight 18:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated by Starblind and to flip the bird to the threat by the author. -EDM 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, but if for some unlikely reason it's kept, it needs to be run through a few NPOV filters. 23skidoo 00:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Starblind. The story happened, but sadly, it's simply not notable and the article is not encyclopedic - it's more a news story like one might read on Slashdot. Xaa 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sad but nn. "Cease and desist"? That's a laugh. --Etacar11 01:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If we have article about the criminal bitch PFC Lynnie exploiting detainees like animals, than we should have article about a detainee being exploited. If we only carry the criminals, then Wiki is aiming for a new low. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so the amount of media attention is not a measure for inclusion. If it were, Wiki should be called Reader's Digest instead. But as far as news go, Jackie's federal venue civil rights violation lawsuit series will certainly make it into the big news sooner or later, so why not have the article now?

As for Slashdot, they already the carry the news from yesterday, that wikipedia is starting to censor officially (read it here: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/05/2012229.shtml?tid=187&tid=95). I think this Jackie Noyes article is perfect example why wikipedia will fail. People delete info they find disturbing and the majority of netizens are in USA, so only US-pinkglasses info can be posted and wiki has less and less to do with reality over time. However, I need to warn, that it is EN.wikipedia.org and not US.wikipedia.org, so you cannot sanitize this wiki of all US-condemning info.

By the way, the Jackie case was an international affair, because it was the AI who did most to get her and the baby out of prison. They secured the support of a european monarch, mother herself, who contacted the wisconsin governor via a mutual friend, an influental lobbist-businessman and this really set things in motion. But this is not offical info that could get into wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by 213.178.101.126; user's 1st edit.)

• • The Slashdot story you link to describes greater editorial control, not censorship, and if you would bother to read the comments, many Slashdotters think this is a necessary thing to add to Wikipedia. I'm personally ambivalent about the idea. Please point out above the voters you think wish to "censor" this particular article based on finding the article "disturbing." This is not censorship; this is editing. android79 14:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Jimbo has officially said the aforementioned story is complete bunk. Yelyos 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Prisoners, and mental patients, get raped in prisons and mental institutions around the world every day. It's sad. Scandalous, even. It would be instructive, and encyclopedic, to have information on the incidence of such events in various countries around the world. Anons and slashdotters, feel free to make such an article and include this person in it on an equal NPOV basis with other identified victims of prison abuse worldwide. This person, alone, is unencyclopedic for reasons of disproportionality in view of her non-notability. Oh, and in view of the last anon post, add to the reasons for deletion: conspiracy theory. -EDM 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I think, given the media coverage, that this is notable enough for Wikipedia. However, it really needs to be cleaned up, and should be linked from Custodial rape. Lots of girls go missing each year - what makes an Elizabeth Smart notable and not a Nicole Morin is the relative media coverage in each case, and if Jackie has become some sort of media figure representing custodial rape, by all means we should include the article. Blackmail is unfortunate, but it shouldn't factor in our decision to keep an article unrelated to the perpetrator. Yelyos 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noon hour basketball

nn local basketball club - but gently folks this is a first attempt --Doc (?) 15:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — NN. — RJH 16:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Decent article but unsuitable subject. Delete Agentsoo 17:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Forbsey 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arab culture in france

In its current state, it is just dump site for names. lots of issues | leave me a message 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Improved, nomination withdrawn. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — the subject is valid; the content is meaningless. Might as well start over. — RJH 15:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is okay, just enough context is given. It should be written in w:fr: and then translated & transwikied over though. Dunc|☺ 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the subject could be interesting, though as is, is just a stub. Grcampbell| 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Xaa 00:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone has created an Arab culture in France article with this name title as a redirect. That seems to me to be an elegant solution. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- Darwinek 07:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Question: is it actually OK to remove the VfD tag when the nominator withdraws a nomination? There was one delete vote, and some people (not in this discussion, apparently) favor the mass deletion of ethnicity-related articles. -- Visviva 12:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Rathfarnham. Will do in a min. -Splash 00:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Old Orchard Pub(Dublin)

Non notable pub. 80 google results.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Rathfarnham. Kappa 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Rathfarnham. Forbsey 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyal Tarazi

Dentistry instructor. 3 Google hits. Possible vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 15:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Noble work no doubt, but not notable on a global scale. Agentsoo 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Whether a doctor, basketball player, photographer, or janitor, you've got to be notable or at the top of your field to merit a biographical article. Notability not established here. Tobycat 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -Splash 23:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phantasy World

Non-notable and website spam - Also poor (promotional) structure 172.214.177.252 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Agentsoo 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising --RoySmith 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It might be worth looking at the whole "List of popular MOOs" section at MOO. While I think the general concept of MUDs and MOOs is encyclopedic, individual ones probably aren't. There is some interesting historical material in LambdaMOO, and (to a lesser extent) LinguaMOO and MediaMOO, but overall I'm thinking it would make sense to merge the significant parts from those individual articles into MOO and have one good article instead of a smattering of trivial ones. I'm not sure, however, if that discussion is in-scope for this particular VfD. --RoySmith 13:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. Forbsey 18:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Save page edited. Advertising removed. -Not sure what 'Unotable' means. Unsigned comment by 207.69.136.197

Comment: It is unknown to this writer the difference between said article and other articles under the same topic heading. The topic heading is noted as "List of Popular MOOs", and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the said article is 'on topic' and according to the topic. The writer of the article did not create the topic. 207.69.138.7 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Save on topic. --207.69.137.202 22:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Could you provide us a reason why this should be in Wikipedia not just "on topic." It is spam as I see it. --J. Nguyen 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Xaa 00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. I also agree with Roysmith here - These pages may be seen as trivial and competetive advertising - Maybe a section on each of the MOOs is required on the main MOO page to create one substancial page. However I see that LambdaMOO is deserving of it's own page due to the insight it gives. Kipper2258 11:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into MOO. -- Visviva 13:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael hazelberg

Non-notable/vanity/self promotion, related to Bronson Pharr and Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates. Delete --Etacar11 16:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Agentsoo 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, delete. Punkmorten 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that don't belong in an encyclopedia. You people obviously have a vendetta against Bronson Pharr. I say keep it. (Unsigned vote by 172.142.197.160 (talk · contribs), first edit)

• Delete as per Etacar11 Mr. Know-It-All 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Celzrro 02:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ditsworthy Warren, Dartmoor

A bio of a farmer. Likely relative wrote this entry. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Regretfully delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• nn bio; speedy delete. Agentsoo 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Forbsey 18:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Aramean. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Arameans

The Arameans are an extinct, possibly fictious nationality that is only mentioned in the Old Testament. The page in question lists 3 names and at one time listed 5 (2 were wrong). It serves no purpose and could *easily* be assimilated into the proper, existing Arameans page. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, or possibly assimilate into the existing Arameans page. Kappa 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Valid info but doesn't need its own page. Agentsoo 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect. Nandesuka 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So next time someone tries to find a List of Arameans, they should be invited to start a new one? Kappa 18:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What Kappa means, of course, is that we cannot merge without redirect since the GFDL license we use demands we retain the authorship history. -Splash 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Aramean. -Splash 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Aramean, no redirect. -HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't do that, per the terms of the GFDL as I said above. We have to retain authorship history. -Splash 18:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not just copy the authorship history to the Aramean Talk page? -HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So next time someone tries to find a List of Arameans, they should be invited to start a new one? Kappa 18:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 17:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MN Chat

Delete It's... an IRC channel. About Minnesota. With maybe 50 users. I think we're scraping the bottom of non-notability barrel here. Not to mention that WP:NOT a directory, which should apply to IRC and Usenet etc... channels just as much as phone numbers. Icelight 16:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Numerous websites are notable. A small handfull of forums are notable. Very, very, very few IRC channels are notable, and this ain't one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agentsoo 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Niteowlneils. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Probabilistic Graphical Models

• Delete Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, or a place for original research. However, if the article can be replaced by a definition of the term, it can be kept. --202.149.55.42 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete From the article: "This is the new page for discussions on Probabilistic Graphical by students". Oh, no it isn't. Wikipedia is not a free forum host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems to have confused Wikipedia with the general concept of a wiki. Delete. Agentsoo 17:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Contact attempt. Nabla 23:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT Xaa 00:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax which isn't very funny. FCYTravis 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humberto Herdocia

Some guy just put up a fake bio

This is good Vote tampering by Johntes (talk · contribs) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is not good. Speedy Delete. Lame-o attempt at a "funny" vanity page. Possibly a BJAODN attempt, but neither funny or interesting enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy Delete for reasons stated by starblind.-- 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Angels And God Consciousness

Someone's personal spiritual theories. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete <drini ☎> 16:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio too. Delete. Agentsoo 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--BaronLarf 17:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal theory. Tearlach 18:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. Jaxl | talk 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaegan Blackthorne

Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete either non-canonical or hopelessly obscure. The web has plenty of Ultima info, and this isn't mentioned anywhere I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• nn. Delete. Agentsoo 17:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Forbsey 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Starblind. Nandesuka 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn. Jaxl | talk 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete contextless, nn. --Etacar11 01:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn--Dysepsion 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Story 2

No vote. This article had a hugely messy previous VfD. It was overwhelmingly rewritten during the course of it, and the rewriter suggested relisting on VfD. There was only one useful vote subsequent to the rewrite, and thus I am taking the rewriter's advice. -Splash 16:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is now a much more useful article than when it was originally listed. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a valid article about a minor (somewhat)relegious movement. Remarkably NPOV for such, actually. --Icelight 18:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good catch Splash! =) Xaa 00:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable enough article. I think that part at the end is pointless, about using the term sarcastically. Why is that there? --Etacar11 01:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current state. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a serious article about an important strain of thought. I agree with Etacar11 that the sarcastic Term section is out of place. A quick Google search suggests that the phrase great story in common usage is positive not sarcastic. -- JimR 06:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sonic Mew has removed the Term: thanks! -- JimR 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After my rewrite, and the subsequent modifications, this is a far more useful piece. Mmmbeer 20:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks Mmmbeer! MBDowd 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red screen of death

WP:NOT crystal ball. Dunc|☺ 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I think that this article deserves to be expanded and explained in more detail as soon as more information is publicly known concerning the nature of RSoD. It definitely should stay. 12:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it appears to be a confirmed function of Windows Vista now. No longer a crystal ball item as it does exist. However the exact nature of it is still a bit fuzzy.Gateman1997 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Gazpacho 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is more RSOD's than the Windows one, such as the ps2 DRE cloud, this could be expanded a lot more. ~GT4GTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by GT4GTR (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue screen of death --Carnildo 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue screen of death. K1Bond007 21:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue screen of death. Xaa 00:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's appropriate. We don't know that this replaces the BSOD. The screenshots suggest that it comes from the bootstrap rather than the kernel. Gazpacho

• Keep, the beta shows the red screen of death does exist, when the beta 2 is realeased more will be added to the article Theboarder410 20:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there's a precedent for different types of computer failure error screens to be listed on different articles, and this looks like it's going to turn out different enough to the blue screen of death that it warrants its own article - after all, we do have Black screen of death, along with a host of other articles for non-Microsoft operating system crash screens. We can always merge later if it proves to be exactly the same thing in a different colour. Yelyos 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge that.  Grue  19:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue screen of death. Does anyone else think the "exectuion" (sic) bit is a little strange? — JIP | Talk 06:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is now a confirmed feature of Vista(Longhorn), and it was confimed on an msdn blog, no less (http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/05/07/415335.aspx). Besides, if the Black Screen of Death is worthy of its own article, shouldn't this be, also? --enigma_x 19:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Blue screen of death; the Black screen occurs in a different operating system. Perhaps BSOD should redirect to something Windows System Errors or something, anyway?—Kbolino 21:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Different languages mean different meanings.

Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Original Research. -Satori 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; essay, OR. Jaxl | talk 19:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – malathion ^talk 06:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francine Kansteiner

The wife of a notable politician is not in and of herself notable. DS 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Forbsey 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 19:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, people would want to know this. Kappa 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Walter H. Kansteiner, III --Tim Pope 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Walter H. Kansteiner, III, keep or expand 65.161.188.11
• Delete. Notability is not transferred by osmosis. -Splash 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I guess this means my shaking Stephen King's hand once didn't help? ;-) Darn. Delete - Xaa 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge so Barbara Bush or Tipper Gore are TRULY notable on ther own and not by osmosis? I think there is some important information here. Also, I have not completed all of my research. Note that she just recently got married. I would like to move it into Walter Kansteiner's page. Kgrr Kgrr 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Field Marshal (India)

This article is nominated for deletion as I could find no evidence that the rank has ever in fact existed. During World War II, some British Generals were referred to as "Field marshals of the Indian Army" but were simply British Field Marshals in command of Indian troops. In addition, this is a one line article created by an anon user with no sources provided. -Husnock 17:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Documented rank in the Indian Army, with two holders: Field Marshal Padma Vibushan Somasji Hormuzji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, and Field Marshal Kodandera Madappa Cariappa (source).

• Send to cleanup. Google search confirms many instances. Still, the article is way to short to be useful in its current form. Mistercow 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Real and notable position but article is too short to be useful in its current form. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum

50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is no longer nonsense. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to find examples of fictional characters with autism? Kappa 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original, um, "research". Or does Melville actually say anywhere that Captain Ahab is "on the autistic spectrum"? Uppland 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are dozens of sources which say that Raymond in Rain Man is is autistic. Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as much of it is unverifiable original research. FCYTravis 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So why not just edit that out? Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listing is highly subjective, so qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I would vote to keep if enough is left after the subjective elements are removed. ManoaChild 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Possibly move to fictional characters with autistism if all speculation (Ralph Wiggum? Bert? Come on...) is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to tentaive keep now speculation is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, all the second section would have to go. It's speculation. A lsit of characters that have autism from fiction is a potentially useful list (and would be a better page with a small line or two about said characters). A page of unsubstanciated guesses, that is not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm all for tossing the speculation section of the page, but I think a list of canonically autistic characters is useful and no more unreasonable than any other list. --Ambyr 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but delete the speculative part unless the speculation can be documented (e.g. if the speculation was covered in the media). Pburka 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Which part of the list do you think is speculation? They all seem verifiable to me. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is verifiable and encyclopedic. The objections above all refer to an earlier version of the list that was easily improvable, demonstrating that this was properly a matter for cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the current version. However, anon appears to intends to add his own speculation - should be watched - Skysmith 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article in its current state is useful. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This list is interesting. Brownman40 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting, and a worthy study, so far as the fiction actually confirms that the character is autistic and not simply implied nor fanon. - Gilgamesh 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell

Vanity and non-encyclopedic Gorrister 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• It appears that Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda and James Russell are the authors of a book Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction. Now Russell does not seem to be the James Russell on whom we have article. Each however are professors at decent univerities, and probably deserve their own pages written by someone knowledgeable about their work. It appears that a page on three of them was written by a clueless newbie. And it isn't vanity. So I think it's best to split them and then create a redirect to James Russell (the chap mentioned above, not t'other one), a dab page less preferably, since he constitutes the bulk of the article. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; not more notable than the average college professor, even if split into three separate articles (which would thus be 1/3rd as notable?) Sdedeo 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Norris

Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• speedy. These kind of articles can now be speedied (see WP:CSD), which helps reduce clutter on VfD (and is easier, just insert {{db|reason=vanity (CSD #7)}}). Brighterorange 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• comment oops; the article does say "noted", so maybe this does need to remain on VfD. Brighterorange 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Cursive 03:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gitanjali Banerjee

Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• speedy as vanity with no assertion of notability. Brighterorange 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological guilt

Unsavable original research and amazingly POV. A few days ago, I deleted an obnoxious picture gallery that consisted of images of George W. Bush, Hitler, and the Holocaust (and I'm a solid Democrat, by the way). This article is the first of the 174 Google hits on "ontological guilt". Article is the sole contribution of User:Delita Figaro, who has not returned to defend her work. --goethean ॐ 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete; totally OR. Brighterorange 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; OR and it doesn't conform to some of the most basic standards of style on wikipedia. Mistercow 21:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly original research. Tobycat 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete Not NPOV. If it wasn't completely OR, I would say that nearly all of it was, and that the concept of ontological guilt is not at all widespread or consistent. (However, many google searches will return wikipedia articles 1st in a list--I don't think that by itself shows anything.) WhiteC 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and reading it gave me WP:BRD. =P Xaa 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Even written in first person... --Etacar11 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term seems to have very little currency, if any. Matuszek 17:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinger

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is absolutely no reason for a sub-sub-sub-supporting character to have their own article. -Soltak 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Since wikipiedia is not paper, there's no reason it shouldn't. Kappa 19:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Bravo, Wikipedia isn't paper. You know what else it isn't? A receptable for any useless garbage that pops into someone's head! -Soltak 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • But the point is valid. Notability is not written in the deletion policy guidelines. If we can't find a more objective reason to delete an article than notability, perhaps we should assume it may be notable to someone else. Mistercow 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Many things and people are notable to one people or a few people, but I think the key to notability here on Wikipedia for personalities is when something can be talked about in a random conversation with most people you know or just see on the street and they can note who they are. This obviously is still a little too broad for a personal policy, but it's a starting point. "Dinger" doesn't meet that qualification, he(it?) should be merged into the minor characters article. Also, is it just me, or has Kappa voted to keep in every vfd he's been in? I assume that the paper comment is on the possible limitlessness of Wikipedia since it has no specific spatial qualities. Otherwise, I wish you told me earlier because I tried to make Origami out of some articles, and it wasn't pretty ;-) Karmafist 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a List of minor Sesame Street characters if anyone wants to bother. Otherwise, delete with extreme prejudice. FCYTravis 19:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Expand or merge --Tim Pope 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Wikipedia is not toilet paper, either. --Carnildo 20:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Dinger was the name of the band Andy Bell was in before Erasure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I like that. Could this be redirected to Andy Bell (singer) for the time being? - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine with me, though the current Andy Bell (singer) article doesn't seem to mention Dinger. It's just something I happen to know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as written. The Dinger is about as significant to Sesame Street as Babu Bhat is to Seinfeld. ESkog 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sesame Street, or rewrite as a dab page if the Andy Bell (singer) connection can be verified (this name isn't mentioned in that article currently). Or simply Delete if no one wants to bother making the dab page, or if there is no consensus on where to redir. In any case do not keep in the present form. DES ^(talk) 14:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The Andy Bell / Dinger connection can definitely be verified. Here's just a few examples from four completely different websites EIL's Dinger discography ... Andy mentions Dinger in an interview ... an Andy bio mentioning Dinger ... an erasure Discography with Dinger record scan Seriously, I din't make it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glamazon X

"Glamazon" is a fairly obvious portmanteau with lots of Google hits, but not when it's combined with what seem like keywords from this article, like "blankenship" or "talexia". Hoax? DS 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Searches reveal nothing useful. Whether hoax or actual fiction, it's certainly non-notable. Qualifies for deletion. Tobycat 21:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, a search on "Glamazon X" yielded 3 unique hits, 2 of them porn. --Etacar11 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an actual graphic novel, not a porn site. Please don't delete this. It means a lot to a lot of people to have this listed as an entry here. Thank you. (Unsigned vote by 24.117.199.139 (talk · contribs))

Glamazon X is a comic book character familiar to gays in the South Mississippi area. Please don't delete this entry. (Unsigned vote by RWFanMS (talk · contribs), second edit)

Okay, then, tell us more about her, and in what way she's relevant. This is what VfD is for.DS 01:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Bionic Bunny. The merging has already been done as a result of the VfD on that article, and the suggestion to merge to Arthur (cartoon) would seem redundant now that the author of that comment has voted to keep Bionic Bunny. -Splash 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Bunny

Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of interest to fans of Arthur (cartoon). Kappa 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Then let's merge it there. I seriously doubt anyone is going to get done watching an Arthur episode, run to their computer, and type in "Dark Bunny" before typing in "Arthur" -Soltak 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• merge. I agree. If this were an in-depth discussion, it would perhaps deserve its own article, but if it's just a paragraph it is better located within the main article. Brighterorange 19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Bionic Bunny, which it's a (fictional) spin-off of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Arthur (cartoon), with some of this maybe going into an episode summary. See my comments below at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Bionic_Bunny -LtNOWIS 20:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is less keepable than Bionic Bunny. I think this Dark Bunny thing only appeared in a single episode, whereas Bionic Bunny was used repeatedly. ike9898 21:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote Change I suggest redirection to Bionic Bunny following that article's large-scale expansion. There is now a section there pertaining to Dark Bunny. -Soltak 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Might as well redirect to Bionic Bunny, I don't think anyone's going to confuse this with Frank from Donnie Darko CanadianCaesar 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bionic Bunny, as per Soltak and CanadianCaesar. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect -Splash 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bionic Bunny

Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, prevalent character on major network show. Kappa 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't watched the show in years but I know that Bionic Bunny isn't "prevalent." I also know that PBS, while extremely important, isn't a "major network." -Soltak 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry I misunderstood. Anyway keep, useful information for fans of the show. Kappa 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, I think this could be expanded. Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Arthur. Even one of the most-well-known characters in the show, Buster Baxter, redirects to the article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arthur. Being the father of two young children I've seen this show a lot. Al 20:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to Arthur (cartoon). Bionic Bunny is a pretty small part of the show, and he should have an overview there like the other characters. Eventually, the cast list and episode list could split off of the main article, but a character like Bionic Bunny doesn't deserve his own page, and we could merge this without losing any content.-LtNOWIS 20:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep, since article has been expanded.-LtNOWIS 20:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very least don't redirect to the cartoon. Bionic Bunny is also a character in the books, and even has his own spin-off (The Bionic Bunny Show, ISBN 0316109924) which predates the Arthur cartoon show by more than a decade. The Bionic Bunny Show was also made into an episode of Reading Rainbow. BB also has merchandise, such as a doll, and scores decently on Google (16,800 Google hits). Redirecting Bionic Bunny to the Arthur TV show would be like redirecting Bugs Bunny to Space Jam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article is expanded to reflect how prevalent the Bionic Bunny character actually is I'll be happy to withdraw my vfd request. As the article currently stands, I wouldn't have known any of that about the books (and didn't!) without you saying something. -Soltak 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You have a very good point there, my friend. I'll expand it now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an insignificant subject, but compared to some other things we keep, this isn't that bad. BB definently a recurring character in the Arthurverse. ike9898 21:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan CanadianCaesar 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Request Withdrawn following large-scale expansion by Starblind. Great job on the expansion, by the way :-) -Soltak 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It's a solid 12 paragraphs now. No hard feelings, of course, since the previous stub was mighty slim, and I fully understand why someone might nominate it for VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, if it's necessary... Wow. Starblind, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia is great. Almafeta 21:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Love Ducks

Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, no reason not to cover. Kappa 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Aside, perhaps, from the fact that it's a minor plot element of a children's TV show on PBS. -Soltak 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The only part of that which might be a reason is "minor", however wikipedia is not paper so it has space for minor plot elements too. Kappa 19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • In the main article, yes. Love Ducks should either be merged there or removed due to lack of content. -Soltak 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Although I am not the creator of this article, nor have I edited it, I feel I am too close to the subject matter to vote objectively and therefore recuse myself. I will say, though, that Love Ducks is only central to one Arthur episode (and briefly referenced in a few others). If the vote ends in a merge/redirect decision, I suggest that the target be Teletubbies, of which Love Ducks is an obvious reference/parody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at best merge with Aurthur. This is a one-time thng,unlike Bionic Bunny which appears in the Arthurverse regularly. ike9898 04:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Arthur (cartoon). It is of some interest there but I don't see hope for significant expansion on its own. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's covered, in a better way, in the Bionic Bunny article. Could be merged there. CanadianCaesar 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per arguments above. (note that this can't legally be done until the VfD is closed). -- Visviva 14:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portland High School now moved to Portland High School, Portland, Maine

• "It's located in Portland, Maine." is barely even a bloody stub! I don't want to get into that ridiculous "every school is notable" nonsense, but if somebody wants to start an article they should know more about the topic than its geographical location! Delete -Soltak 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please doing this all the time is totally against jimbos wishes Yuckfoo 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• As I mentioned initially this is completely independent of the schools debate. This vfd is motivated by an article devoid of content. If recreated later with actual information, I would not nominate it for deletion. -Soltak 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete no content. It can be recreated when someone has something to say about it. --Tim Pope 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please note that we have a speedy criterion for articles that merely rephrase the title. Gazpacho 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope that this article demonstrates how utterly bankrupt such a policy is. I had never heard of this school, but with only the title of the school and its location I was able to write an undeletable article in a few minutes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• speedy it, but if recreated with verifiable content, then it should be kept. Brighterorange 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Page has been tagged for speedy deletion -Soltak 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. King Middle School, also in Portland, has a similar VfD entry. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I did what the person who nominated this article should have done instead--what we are supposedly here to do--research and expand. This is the second oldest high school in the US, the third high school to be established in the new country, and among its famous alumni were Robert Peary and John Ford, the award winning movie director. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Something in your research is wrong. At least 4 schools founded pre-1800 still operate in the U.S.: the Phillips Academies, Boston Latin, and Milton. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:20, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
    • Second oldest public HS in the US. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. You're right. My edit said that the school was the second older public high school still operating in the US, but I omitted the word public in my vote here. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• remerge following undeletion. --Tim Pope 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing was undeleted. The article was properly recreated after I speedily deleted the contentless and unhelpful subsubsubsubsubstub that had been created. Kudos to those who turned it into a proper article. FCYTravis 17:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW, if the article was only It's located in Portland, Maine (and indeed it does look like a Maoririder article), then I agree with the speedy delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe it was undeleted and merged. The history shows no deletions, although FCY Travis' premature speedy is in the log. This premature speedy shows that people must do some research before pressing that button. That a stub may be uninformative in itself is abolutely no excuse at all. Without a stub there is nothing upon which most of us--particularly the vast majority of us who would not be aware of the school's existence without the stub--can base our research and expand the stub. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There was nothing premature about it. My speedy deletion was based on the fact that it was a very short article with no context - speediable under CSD criteria 1.2.1. The history for Portland High School shows five deleted edits. FCYTravis 23:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You're not the only person to use an extremely questionable interpretation of the "no context" clause. Of course it had context, it stated clearly that Portland High School was in Portland, Maine. With that context the stub was expandable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
• Following rewrite my vote is keep Everyone knows I rarely vote this way on a school article, but I think the age of the institution confers notability. -Soltak 19:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - notability clearly established. Dunc|☺ 20:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep now that it has been made into a good article, and its notability has been made clear. Salsb 20:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yet again. Next time try improving the article instead of deleting it. —RaD Man (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would've tagged it for deletion even if it wasn't a one sentence stub. Schools aren't inherently noteworthy. And before anyone even gets started, I know that Wikipedia isn't paper, but it's also not a junkyard. The only reason I changed my vote to keep was because the age of the institution is notable. -Soltak 21:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'll be watching your taggings carefully for a while. There is no CSD for a school article on grounds of non-notability. You were right to bring this to VfD. It would have made more sense to do some research--it's what you're supposed to be here for. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You appear to have misunderstood. I'm well aware that there's no CSD for non-notability. I tagged the article for speedy deletion, and that request was favorably acted upon, because the original article had no content other than "It's located in Portland, Maine." What I was referring to was the fact that I personally believe that the majority of articles regarding schools do not belong on Wikipedia due to the fact that while education is inherently notable, the buildings where instruction occurs are not. It would've made more sense to actually read my statement before commenting -- it's what admins are supposed to be here for. -Soltak 22:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrongly speedied articles, particularly schools, are always resurrected (I should know, I usually do it myself). It is wrong to speedy an article on a school solely because it only correcly locates the school--that is all we need to expand it. I'm taking the liberty of moving the school building/homeschooling debate to the talk page of this VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable alumni, second-oldest public HS in the USA. ESkog 16:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, new version shows acceptable level of notabilityGateman1997 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Keep. Please do at least some research on topics before resorting to deletion. VfD is crowded enough without pointless nominations like this one. Factitious 22:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ediot

neologism descriptive of the article creator. DS 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest moving to Wiktionary. There were about 5500 Google hits, but it's a neologism for sure. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete (or speedy as I think this is actually an attack page). Not to be confused with Ren Höek's "eeeediot". Brighterorange 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CakePHP

WP:ISNOT a PHP manual. DS 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete or merge with another article on PHP. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. --Etacar11 02:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Evil Incorporated

Some bizarre conspiracy theory that lacks references (Google , context, etc. Or maybe it's about a gaming clan. Dunc|☺ 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mistercow 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete before we give Dan Brown any more ideas --Doc (?) 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Almost completely conjecture and very POV, with no chance of becoming POV ArrowmanCoder 05:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frost & Sullivan

advertising, cut and paste from promotional text, obvious copyvio Sdedeo 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted after listing on WP:CP

• Sure, delete, but the copyright guys should get to it. -D. Wu 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• If it's copyvio, there's no need to bring it here too. WP:CP helps take some of the VfD strain. -Splash

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 365 Tomorrows

But so far it has only 4 (yup a 96hr old website) not many more tomorrows here I think. --Doc (?) 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT a webdirectory. No Alexa data, unsurprisingly. -Splash 00:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete REALLY jumping the gun, definitely nn. --Etacar11 02:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (too jaw-dropped open speechless to give a reason). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dj itch

Non-notable DJ, hoping his skills will expand. Official website is a MySpace page. the wub "?/!" 21:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definition of nn. Agentsoo 21:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. -D. Wu 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Dj vanity. --Etacar11 02:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ID eNTITY

This was put to VFD just a few weeks ago. However, it only received three votes, and I believe there was some confusion, so I'm nominating again (if anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please direct to my talk page). "Id entity" roto (Roto being a character in the story) receives just 20 Google hits. I understand it's been published, but being published doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough. First VFD can be found below. ral315 21:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Here on Wikipedia, being published generally does mean it's notable. Almafeta 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published manhwa. Kappa 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Also note that the series originally is published in the Korean language, so many relevant Google hits would not contain the English title and character names. —Lifeisunfair 23:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Almafeta. 23skidoo 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.  Grue  19:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baja California Rat Snake

As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -Soltak 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.--Fenice 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• • It's not the topic I have a problem with but the content, or rather the lack of content. If someone else was interested in expanding (I don't know nearly enough to do so) I'd be more than happy to withdraw the vfd request. -Soltak 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Then mark it with a stub or expansion topic or find the WikiProject snakes or look up some info or find some herpophile Wikipedians and ask for input ... but don't VFD an article about a subject when you accept it's a perfectly valid one for an encylcopedia article. Ben-w 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would remind you that this article could have been (and still can) simply be speedied due to lack of content beyond restating the title. -Soltak 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • And then we would not have an article about the snake. Now we do. Which do you think is better? Ben-w 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
          • It's irrelevant at this point becuase I withdrew the request but I'll respond anyway. It is always, always better to have no article at all than to have a poorly written one with no valuable content. -Soltak 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
            • If those were the only two options, sure. They aren't. Ben-w 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Following expansion by Kappa there is no longer a need for vfd. Request Withdrawn -Soltak 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NXTbook Media

ad page by anonymous user 69.104.40.172, whose only contribution is this article. Delete. Ken 21:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. -D. Wu 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the anonymous user who created this article. This article is exactly like the Zinio and Texterity articles, which have not been deleted. If this article is going to be deleted, then the Zinio and Texterity articles should be deleted as well. -69.104.40.172 21:56, August 5, 2005
  • Comment: I agree that all three articles are similar, so I've nominated Zinio and Texterity as well. Thank you for the pointer. Ken 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; text is essentially an ad; no claim to notability. Sdedeo 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 02:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. -Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Embanet

Patent advertisement. Furthermore, the articles's creator, 216.234.39.163 (contribs) has added Embanet's name to several other pages. While these other edits don't seem to be overt advertisements (with exception of Computer Based Training, which has also been VfD'd), I believe that any mention of Embanet should be removed from those articles as well. -D. Wu 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio, as below. -Splash 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. -Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Based Training

This article is patent advertisement, identical in text to Embanet (see above). -D. Wu 21:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to E-learning. Pburka 23:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio. Tagged and bagged. When they give a link in such a short article, its usually a copy-paste job. -Splash 00:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honker

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Honkers actually appear in many many episodes (I remember seeing them when I was a kid and I saw a recent episode still featuring them). However to the best of my knowledge there really isn't much else to say about them beyond this one line. 23skidoo 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Sesame Street and redirect to nose. --Scimitar ^parley 16:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor characters. ESkog 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very minor character. --Carnildo 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Brownman40 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sesame Street characters are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)