Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 January 11 1.1 Papa (slang) 1.2 Sick set 2 Croydon Gateway 2.1 Catalejo (chess) 2.2 Analysing Social Movements 2.3 Garrett forni 2.4 Chez 2.5 Ibraheem mohammed 2.6 Hamlar the barbarian 2.7 Todd Bennett 2.8 Heather Rivers 2.9 Psilenus 2.10 Henry George Melville Hora 2.11 Webbuilder 2.12 Audrey Albert 2.13 Ray Of Frost 2.14 Borange 2.15 Olb 2.16 Things guys think girls should know 2.17 Christopher Poompan 2.18 Profane ouburst 2.19 The Sleepers (band) 2.20 Huntitout 2.21 Sherwood No. 159, Saskatchewan 2.22 Jeff Lewis (poet) 2.23 Joe Bonsall 3 Glove problem 3.1 108 Stars, Aisha Clan Clan, Gene Starwind, Jim Hawking, Kei Pirates, Sentinel III, Tendo King 3.2 Bandgeekndb 4 Removed Jeannie Novak reference 5 The Book Is Unpublished? 5.1 Brent Sullivan 5.2 Edwin hollett 5.3 Fremred 5.4 Thee'en 5.5 B0rk 5.6 Galambosianism 5.7 Üqoi 5.8 Reilu Meininki 5.9 Kenneth O'Keefe 5.10 M-.-n 5.11 10pm 5.12 Aliet 5.13 Johannes H. Berg Jr. 5.14 The Alliance of the Cradle of Mystery 5.15 National League One 5.16 Assoziazione Bandiera Rossa 5.17 IPod shuffle 5.18 2006 in baseball 5.19 B Man 5.20 Peyman 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg 7.1 Lz96.org 7.2 Men of Harlech Lyrics 7.3 BCoD 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg 9.1 Second Cold War 9.2 Fucking Bitch Club 9.3 Misfits of hogwarts 9.4 Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers 9.5 SuperThinking (computer program) 9.6 Femdom cartoons 9.7 Snow fort 9.8 Yoan 9.9 Brian Tatum 9.10 Eric leavitt 9.10.1 Suspect and sockpuppet votes 9.11 John Hillerman (band) 9.12 Moshcore 10 Merge +tag 11 from VfD: 12 Problem 12.1 EyePod 12.2 Rhyne 12.3 United Students for Student Rights

[edit] January 11

Just for the record, the above message applies to the VfD page and to its contents, which are duplicated in the box above. The rest of this talk page may of course be used for future discussions. — mark ✎ 10:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Croydon Gateway

Not notable. --fvw* 00:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Keep: cleanup and merge into the Croydon article. Re-written inro NPOV it merits a mention as it seems like a large issue in the locality and will impact the future of the Borough. Thryduulf 01:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

following rewrite, I strengthen my keep vote and withdraw my merge request. Thryduulf 09:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Marginal Delete. Notable in only a very small area, and the article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite to eliminate POV and snide remarks. Might be worth merging into the main article on Croydon. 23skidoo 01:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to do strikethroughs, so I'm going to change by vote this way to a marginal keep given the promise by Philip, below, to do a rewrite. 23skidoo 05:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To strikethrough text, use <s> and </s>, or <strike> and </strike>. Thus: I vote yes no on such-and-such. —tregoweth 06:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe not notable in Holland but very much so in Croydon. Keep but cleanup. Merge if anyone can be bothered. Dr Zen 01:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Croydon and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) New vote below -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Croydon, then add redirect. Megan1967 04:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's helpful but needs cleanup and PoV scrub, I added a cleanup tag. Wyss 04:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please do not merge. This is not an obscure project, but has had national media coverage. I will rewrite it and put it in the Redevelopment projects in London category I created as well as the Croydon category. Philip 05:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now rewritten. Philip 06:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Better now. Salazar 06:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewrite is much better and a proposal for a 10,000 seat arena in London seems notable enough in my book.Capitalistroadster 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep now, with the rewrite. Don't merge! Samaritan 10:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep following rewrite. Scheme has had and will continue to have national impact, about which I have added some information - it has been going on for forty years! Mtiedemann 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 12:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Change of vote to keep following re-write. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

[edit] Catalejo (chess)

This is an advert. catalejo+chess scores 28 google hits. Rje 00:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, software ad. Wyss 04:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Adv. Gtabary 12:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Thryduulf 17:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising. --Deathphoenix 20:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Analysing Social Movements

[edit] Garrett forni

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 01:16, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 04:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prob. a classic new user test. Wyss 04:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy. Gtabary 12:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thryduulf 17:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 20:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chez

Looks like its probably referring to what is more commonly called cheez, I think (at least in the US). In any case, I don't see the point of an article here, and even if there were, this isn't it. Tuf-Kat 01:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no need even for a redirect Cdc 01:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I vouch for no deletion this is legitimate information. The word chez is often used when referring to artificial cheese.

• KeepI vote for keep... this is legitimate information. Chez is used quite often when referring to arificial cheese.
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:04, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the first edit (November 18, 2004) by the user who created this article (User:216.114.70.163) was to change "fiery cross" to "chi and rho" in Constantine I (emperor) [1]. This change is still there and has since been wikified. I found several references to chi and rho and Constantine on Google, but Constantine's vision (which this change refers to) appears to have been a fiery cross. I know nothing of this subject, so someone with some knowledge should verify this. DCEdwards1966 04:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, prank dicdef. Wyss 04:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless references are given. --fvw* 07:26, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Or move the chez def to wikitionnary. Gtabary 12:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. Thryduulf 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikctionary. The term seems notable enough. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The french word "chez" is of course already on Wiktionary. I've never heard it used to refer to artificial cheese; I would have expected "cheez" to be used instead. Ben Standeven 06:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This information should certainly be kept. This is a common slang term in the US and is certainly a French term. If it isn't kept it should at least be moved to the Wiktionary.
• Keep This is both a legitimate use of a word to describe an artificial edible food, and is also a French word commonly used in the names of restaurants, in France, the US, and all over the world. If it must be deleted from the encyclopedic section of wikimedia, than it should at least be moved to the wiktionary.
• Move it to wikitionary. Even if it doesn't need an article,its still legit.
  • The three votes above are all by the same anon. --fvw* 19:40, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • These three votes are from three different people at the same school, from computers in labs with extremely similar IP addresses.
• Delete. Probable hoax. Edeans 09:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Americentric neologism. I don't think the French word for "house" needs an entry in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The English wiktionary has definitions (in English) of words from any language. So, Chez should have an entry there. Tuf-Kat 02:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • And indeed it does. Tuf-Kat 03:00, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibraheem mohammed

Can't verify his existence, either under this name, the pen name cited or Ibrahim Mohammed. Tuf-Kat 01:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agreed - nothing in two relevant academic indices Cdc 01:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 02:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verification turns up (unfortunately this is about as common an Islamic name as can be). Wyss 04:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Here several issues. 1) Spellings could be quite different. Do a search on "Ibrahim Mohammed" +poet -> 60 hits 2) Apparently the arabic names can be quite composed, so, "Ibrahim Mohammed" is found found in longer names. 3) I am not sure we can relly on a Google test for notability. So my local conclusion: It would be nice to have more references, more anything to make the article interesting and establish notability. If not done in two weeks: delete. Gtabary 12:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Ibrahim Mohammed" +poet does get 60 hits, but none of them appear to be about this person (they are all about modern individuals, AFAICT). Tuf-Kat 22:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, change the spelling to that most used in English, and add some content. Very notable --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 16:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you verify notability? This is a serious question, as if he is notable, I will change my vote. Tuf-Kat 22:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, no indication of notability. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is not as famous in English like those overcommercialized poets like Kahlil Gibran. But in comprehensive Arabic language resources he is there. huo | (Talk) 22:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you give a specific citation, in Arabic or English? Like Tuf-Kat, I don't want to delete this if he's truly notable. Can you suggest an alternate transliteration/spelling of the name that might appear in English-language sources? He doesn't have to be particularly famous to appear just once in the academic literature, but I didn't find anything in my search, as I noted above. However, I don't read Arabic. Cdc 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • He is in a resource in Arabic, so you should ask one of your friends or lovers. The name of the resource is Kitab al Sher and although it sounds definitive enough to be translated to English or German it has not yet been for some reason. Hope this clarifies things. huo 18:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Kitab al Sher also gets no google hits, at least in English. Can you supply the Arabic title so that can be googled? What sort of resource is it? (e.g. an encyclopedia of Arabic poetry, a textbook of Middle Eastern history, etc) What does it say about him? Does it explain why he is remembered today? Tuf-Kat 00:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if he's so notable, why not write something verifiable about him? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlar the barbarian

Quite comical really. Complete bollocks of course, but quite funny nonetheless. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Move to BJAODN. Rje 01:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 03:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete, not funny, fiction, encyclopedic noise, nonsense, could be speedied. Wyss 04:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at the deleted edit history it has been speedied before but keeps making a reappearance, hence the listing on here. Hopefully the user who keep re-adding it will get the message. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete amusing, but Wikipedia is not the place --InShaneee 04:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Sandover 06:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An OK laugh. Gtabary 12:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN it (if BJAODN can be used as a verb) Thryduulf 17:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The best candidate for BJAODN is the external link to the Official Biography of Hamlar. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Or delete, whatever. I only put it back up so a buddy of mine could print it and give it to the guy it's (loosely) based on. I expected it to be deleted pretty quick, I'm surprised it's still here. Count Zero 01:52, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  • Am i the one who's supposed to delete it or move it to BJAODN? cause i don't know how to move it, and if I'm the one to delete it, then I will. Count Zero 01:52, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
    • How about that, now? I added a whole bunch of links to it, on a variety of useful subjects, like Jimmy Carter and both freedom fighter and terrorist (two sides of the same coin). The article itself might not be contextual, but the links are good.Count Zero 05:41, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
• The Hitlerbeast is dead! Yay! And the article was moved to BJAODN with much rejoicing. Edeans 09:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Er, did the author happen to attend Crazy Go Nuts University? Please blank this so we can speedy it, if it's now safely in BJAODN. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Bennett

Soon to be famous → not notable. --fvw* 01:38, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 03:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a few people by that name that seems notable. But not this guy. --JuntungWu 04:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 04:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 23:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Songs because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Songs}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Album}} template, removing {{Songs}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

from VfD:

Lyrics are not an article, and I doubt the song would be sufficiently notable to merit it's own article anyway. Also possibly a copyvio, though opinions differ on this. --fvw* 01:44, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete. Although I think it's a notable song - and hella catchy - it risks copyvio and the lyrics alone don't deserve their own page. All you need to do is mention the song on the band's page under "Hits" or "Singles". I'd say that's enough. LockeShocke 01:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, delete! —tregoweth 02:14, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 03:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio, not an article. Wyss 04:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Definite copyvio. Remove the lyrics and it is a sub-sub-sub-stub. DCEdwards1966 04:25, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It would be a bad trend to let this stand. --InShaneee 04:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the relevant album. -Sean Curtin 04:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• There is no difference of opinion as to whether or not lyrics can exist on Wikipedia. See the history of lyrics.ch for information as to what happens to databases of lyrics. I have deleted the lyrics from the article and vote to Delete what is left. RickK 05:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, see Wikipedia:Lyrics -- Curps 06:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I was thinking of rewriting this. However, the articles on the Gin Blossoms and the album New Miserable Experience cover most of the ground that my article on this song would have. Delete this article and create Redirect to New Miserable Experience. Capitalistroadster 09:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy the copyvio down/don't let the cops chase us around/The history gone but something might be found/To take its place... Samaritan 10:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Good song. Any article on a popular song should have a place here. Everyking 16:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to New Miserable Experience. Let it be split into its own article the moment there is enough information to justify it. Tuf-Kat 22:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jealous eel, more like. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

This article was voted on for deletion again on 2005 Jan 18 at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hey Jealousy. The consensus was to merge it to New Miserable Experience. dbenbenn | talk 02:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Rivers

Remove the nonsense and you get a substub about a pornstar, with no real evidence of notability. Cdc 01:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as possible vandalism, libel. Wyss 04:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - She is a porn actress but non-notable. DCEdwards1966 04:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Her ImdB entry shows only one movie. Delete. Oh, and P.E. is a short. And there are no imdB listings for Bad Boyz 2 or for Amateur Parties Unleashed 1 (under any similar titles). RickK 05:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are plenty of porn star articles in the Wikipedia, but this one has so little content, as well as a rather puzzling statement about tea, that there isn't enough worth keeping here. 23skidoo 05:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that someone might be playing a prank on someone else. Wyss 06:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete looks like libel or a prank Sandover 06:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'd keep or abstain on an article about Heather Rivers, the real actress, but this is just working in a girl from Rochester with the same name, almost certainly for the purpose of embarassing said girl. Delete, even speedy, but certainly don't speedy a hypothetical future article that dealt exclusively with an even potentially notable Heather Rivers. Samaritan 10:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I guess I should have clearly said this looks like someone's trying to mingle two identities as a prank. Wyss 17:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even a legit article about the porn star would be unlikely to meet notability requirements. -R. fiend 18:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Completely useless content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Combination of (foreign) dictdef and genealogy. --fvw* 01:50, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete. Or move to Wikitionary. LockeShocke 02:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this muddled-sounding, nn dicdef. Wyss 04:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, miraculose deleo! (Miraculously erase!) *poof* -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a non notable, non-English article (must... stop... laughing at AllyUnion's vote!). --Deathphoenix 00:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep in current form. Nice disambiguation, anon. --Deathphoenix 02:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Note, content has changed. 03:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Works for me, keep. --fvw* 02:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
• Disambig but needs cleanup. Keep. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Psilenus

Non-notable band--11 displayed hits for Psilenus band. According to their site, "...in the process of building their first full-length album...". Niteowlneils 01:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fails Google Test. Megan1967 03:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not enough happening yet. Wyss 04:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, when they get their claim of fame, then they shall get their article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fame comes before wikipedia, not vice versa Thryduulf 17:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 22:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity piece. --Deathphoenix 00:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry George Melville Hora

An apparently non-notable 19th century figure. The one Google hit for this is on a geneaology site, which is a bad sign. I checked several different academic indices (JStor, Historical Abstracts, etc) and found nothing. The fact that the anon creator blanked it twice "at the request of the family" [2] is further evidence that this is just somebody's grandpappy. Cdc 02:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, good catch. --fvw* 02:07, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete, genealogy, no evidence provided for the only (frail) note of encyclopedic interest. Wyss 04:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Henry George Melville Hora was his correct name. However he was a conman and a liar. First man to be kicked out of the Legion of Frontiersmen in England. He used several aliases. Colonel Manuel Herrera de Hora was one of six but this was certainly his most used one. A fascinating subject.

A biography by Bruce G. Fuller of New Zealand has recently been publshed in that country. "de Hora 1851-1934 - A man of many places and many names". 'ISBN 978-0-473-12273-7' The author is in no way related to the subject matter. The comment about a "non-notable 19th century figure" raises the question - how does one become "notable" unless written about? Fenreach (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenreach (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webbuilder

Was originally slightly obscured spam; now just marketing fluff about website-creation software that doesn't seem particularly noteable or encyclopedic. —tregoweth 02:12, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the ad. Wyss 04:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Thryduulf 17:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Albert

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 02:18, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. It's all nonsense. The picture in the article is that of Winona Ryder who the same vandal has been adding death dates to and other nonsense. He has even been warned. Shanes 02:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, prank, possible libel or hoax. Wyss 04:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Definitely a hoax. DCEdwards1966 04:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - senseless. Someone has way too much free time on their hands. 23skidoo 05:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Very creative. Salazar 06:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: hoax. Stombs 10:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borange

Dictdef, neologism, not notable, take your pick. --fvw* 02:39, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Someone tried to rhyme a little too hard. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, that was actually the whole point of the humourous coinage. I've copied the only useful content of this article to Orange. Cleaned up, this would be a dictionary definition (sic) with no potential for expansion. Delete. Uncle G 15:18, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete, nn slang dicdef. Wyss 04:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- This article is borange. DCEdwards1966 04:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. A few more of these and List of words that rhyme with orange will have to be factored out of orange (word). Just kidding. JRM 09:21, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Try Blorenge. It's a hill in south-east Wales. Oh, and delete this nonsense. Raven42 13:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think that this is just trying to add a definition to a pre-existing word (cf The Meaning of Liff), but in this case a nonsense word made up specifically to rhyme with orange. Thryduulf 17:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Sporange" already exists as a rhyme for orange. No need to make limericks easier than they already are. :-) Inky 04:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am almost sure this is a recreation of an article that was voted for deletion a while ago, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Well I can't find it... it was previously speedied in August... the reason I think it was on VfD was that in the discussion someone mentioned a brilliant example of somebody legitimately rhyming "orange" without using "sporange" or anything made up... and, no, I can't remember that example either. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Things guys think girls should know

I am not quite sure what it is, but it is certainly not encyclopedic. Indrian 03:42, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity rant, misleading original research (and no mystery why this person seems to be having problems with girls). Wyss 04:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not encyclopedic, original research, POV, pathetic loser. Binadot 05:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd call it "original research," but it doesn't deserve to be called "research." More of an "original rant." Szyslak 05:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I just Google tested this thing just in case it's a copyvio. It's not (unfortunately), but I found it on the message board for YM magazine. I'm guessing it's just some dumbass forwarded email. Before I found that out, I didn't think it could get any less encyclopedic. Szyslak 05:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks just like the list I saw on another website, but for men. Very un-encyclopedic.Riffsyphon1024 06:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gaah, how hideous. I thought this was tiresome when I encountered it as a stupid email forward, it looks even worse in an encyclopedia. Incredibly Strong Delete, if only because it will sorely disadvantage anyone looking to pick up from it.
• Delete, very unencyclopedic, not NPOV, not factual, ect. Titanium Dragon 08:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find periods compelling. Cool Hand Luke 10:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the world is full enough of what men and women should/shoulnd't know about each other, etc. If there is anything you don't know/understand about the oposite sex - ask. Thryduulf 17:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For many reasons already covered. Carrp 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Eric Forste 00:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV original research. Looks like the guy who wrote it has a chip on his shoulder. Megan1967 04:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• "14. We absolutely do not care about, The Backstreet Boys, *NSYNC, 98 Degrees, or what any other guy looks like for that matter." Uh... put it in a time machine and send it back to Usenet circa 1998? Or delete... Samaritan 10:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable Internet samizdat. "Don't make bets about us, because one of your friends" gets 764 Google hits, mostly to versions of the same article. Has not generated catchphrases, is not part of the culture, is not well-sourced factual information. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Poompan

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 03:44, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

[edit] Profane ouburst

Misspelled nickname vanity. --fvw* 03:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Candidate for rapid deletion instead of taking up hours of Wikipedian time... --Wetman 03:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vile vanity, almost a speedy, but not. Wyss 04:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete anti-vanity about a non-notable personality. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sleepers (band)

• Merge with other page of same contents? They are a legitimate band, if you Google "The Sleepers".

I can't find any evidence of notability. --fvw* 04:04, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Delete as a prank or self-promotion zzz.. Wyss 05:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Could be a CSD: Very short article with little or no context. --Deathphoenix 21:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 22:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huntitout

Ad for a new search engine. 6 hits on Google. Also, 6 hits on Huntitout.com :) DCEdwards1966 05:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad for an unremarkable, buggy new meta-search engine. Wyss 05:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also, I'd like to nominate DCEdwards1966 for the Best Evidence of Non-notability Award. -- Plutor 14:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nomination seconded. Thryduulf 18:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I guess huntitout.com doesn't consider itself to be notable. I don't either. Carrp 18:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This reminds me of Metacrawler. Nonetheless, it's a non-notable ad. --Deathphoenix 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	Saskatchewan Portal This article is part of the Saskatchewan WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

from VfD:

[edit] Sherwood No. 159, Saskatchewan

Non-notable. Vanity. DCEdwards1966 05:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Keep this saska-cruft. Wyss 05:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see how this can be called a vanity article, since it's about a geographic area. Very very marginal keep only if someone goes in and removes the unnecessary "from living there" comment and adds some content to bring it in line with the other articles on towns in Saskatchewan. Either that, or create an article listing the rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and leave it at that. 23skidoo 05:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I called it vanity because it was written by someone that lives there. DCEdwards1966 05:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 07:30, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Keep --fvw* 10:03, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• The article submitted was a one-sentence substub... about a real life 720 sq km municipality; a well-off exurb surrounding Regina, the capital of Saskatchewan. It was expandible to discuss physical geography, industry, population and demographics. I've written four short paragraphs and two external links doing so, and it still has room to grow (in each area listed, history, population distribution, transport links, etc., etc.) Should this still be here? Keep. Samaritan 09:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep!. Move to Cleanup. Real place. RickK 09:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Article has been improved. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 09:58, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CJCurrie 17:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep this is much better than the articles for many larger places in the USA. Thryduulf 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article. DCEdwards1966 18:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real places. VfD is not cleanup. GRider\^talk 19:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. --Deathphoenix 21:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability, needs cleanup and expansion if it stays. Megan1967 04:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form Capitalistroadster 10:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in some form or another, if no appropriate merge can be found. Average Earthman 16:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Since when did we start deleting articles on real geographic locales? Yes, the place has a stupid name, but it really exists. Bearcat 04:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Spinboy 05:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Jeff Lewis (poet)

This appears to be vanity. DCEdwards1966 05:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion vainty. Wyss 06:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and use fewer adjectives in future. --fvw* 07:31, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope his poetry is better written than his vanity page. Carrp 18:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 21:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Bonsall

from VfD:

It looks like this man's granddaughter wrote his biography. DCEdwards1966 05:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, new user test. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test. Wyss 06:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a new user test probably more appropriate as a user page. --Deathphoenix 01:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep my new quick substub about the musician. Niteowlneils 02:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Systems.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe sex makespan for the deletion discussion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glove problem

The glove problem is different as stated on mathworld (which links to it from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CondomProblem.html as well) but it may be a bad staement, as it appears ok for corss contamination between doctors or cross contamination between patients to occur. Gloves of course are also handed, which gives rise to a whole other class of problems (pertaining to the handedness or ambdexterity of the examiners). The answer on mathworld also disagrees with the article. Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mention reversible condoms in the article. Are there any at all? As far as I know they all have a very strict "inside" and "outside" (as also mentioned by condom). That also makes sense, because the outside is perfumed or flavored, and the inside is usually coated with some type of spermicide (at least, it is very unlikely to be flavored). On the other hand, latex gloves are reversible, and a left-handed glove may be turned inside-out to make it right-handed. That means that the condom problem will have a higher solution than the glove problem, because the number of sides available to a condom is less than that with a glove. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 11:20, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

For that matter, how practical is it for one person to wear more than a couple condoms? -- Anonymous

This problem is quite far fetched... It looks like it were invented to try to get some attention of sex crazed engineering students or something... No really it's quite stupid. And surely it isn't safe sex.

This has got to be some kind of joke, surely! LOL -stray

from VfD:

There is already an article at Perseus of Macedon. I don't know if this is a common spelling. If it is, then this should be made into a redirect. DCEdwards1966 06:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Spelling confirmed and redirected. Gazpacho 07:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I redirected it to Perseus instead. Persus could just as likly be used for the mythological person. Jeltz talk 18:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Jeltz. IMHO, Perseus is more notable than Perseus of Macedon (disclaimer: I know more mythology than history).--Deathphoenix 01:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep redir to Perseus, as that has disambs to Perseus of Macedon and Perseus (constellation), while neither of the latter do. Niteowlneils 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Perseus. Megan1967 01:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MobCulture

[edit] Bandgeekndb

Dictdef created by User:Bandgeekndb. Possibly intended as a user page. DCEdwards1966 06:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't we already VfD a bandgeek article a while back? Delete anyway. --fvw* 06:33, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. --foobaz·✐ 07:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Yes, there is indeed an article on Band geek, and I voted to delete that, and as I look at it now I still think it should have been deleted.) -- Hoary 08:46, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Band geek. Decision then was "keep". No vote. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-useful misspelling. Gazpacho 08:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band geek is okay. This is not, and I agree that it looks like either a user page or a test page. --Deathphoenix 01:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary deifinition, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test and be done with it. Wyss 07:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

from VfD:

Vanity. RickK 06:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Notable because of book with same title and its adoption in management speak. Keep but improve. Salazar 06:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• User has been here for three days. RickK 07:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and start over. Gazpacho 07:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 10:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless serious cleanup is made. There's potential for a good article on this concept, unfortunately this article is vanity with negative value. --foobaz·✐ 07:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; thanks for the excellent cleanup job, Stombs!. --foobaz·✐ 15:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --fvw* 07:33, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Keep, because the term has been used in management, but remove heavy emphasis on the originator of the word. I have made changes?feel free to revert. Stombs 09:41, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the cleanup seems to have been successful. (Well done, Stombs) Needs a proper cite for Ed Taylor's invention of the word; Raymond Noorda is also credited by some sources. --TenOfAllTrades 15:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Seems like a dicdef to me. RoySmith 15:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Needs to be expanded to be a useful page. Carrp 18:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. --Deathphoenix 01:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ed's vanity word, corporate publishing is awash with this sort of cruft jargon. Wyss 07:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. JuntungWu 13:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, worthy of documenting on Wikipedia. GRider\^talk 23:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Removed Jeannie Novak reference

Jeannie Novak attributes[3] the word to Ray Noorda.

[edit] The Book Is Unpublished?

"coopetition" actually gets 26,400 google hits...I'm impressed. In other news, the "book" in question is being written, rather than has been written? We don't generally comment on books that have yet to be published, unless they've been frequently mentioned in the news. The fact that the book has not yet been written suggests that the author is the same author of this article, which is a little troubling. Any thoughts? func(talk) 01:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all those points and I've removed that section. It's not encyclopedic or even particularly relevant, and adds nothing to the article. If the book gets finished and published and becomes a huge hit which gets everyone talking about coopetition, then it will be worth mentioning in the article. GhostGirl 07:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Sullivan

Possible vanity; non-notable DCEdwards1966 06:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, too mysterious for WP. Gazpacho 07:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not nearly inspirational enough. --foobaz·✐ 07:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I feel inspired to delete this mystery man. Carrp 18:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this vanity, one Tuesday Tickler at a time. --Deathphoenix 01:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 04:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin hollett

Non-notable artist. Zero Google hits. DCEdwards1966 06:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, i can't find any info on him either. --foobaz·✐ 07:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until evidence of notability is provided. --fvw* 07:35, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete this invisible man. --Deathphoenix 01:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fremred

Last name of 11 people in Sweden. DCEdwards1966 06:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Gazpacho 07:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 07:35, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, I know a last name of 8 people in Sweden. Should I write an article about it? :) - Jeltz talk 20:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, obscure name. Jeltz, wait until twelve, then we'll talk. ;-) --Deathphoenix 01:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thee'en

Trivia from some books that don't have articles. DCEdwards1966 06:56, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --foobaz·✐ 07:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I haven't yet decided what kind of cruft this is, but I'm pretty sure it's cruft. --fvw* 07:36, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Now why do I have the feeling that "Space Adventure" (what a title) was not in fact "best selling" after all? Delete. -R. fiend 18:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 18:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, very short, no context. Gazpacho 10:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B0rk

Neologism DCEdwards1966 06:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --foobaz·✐ 07:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slangdef. --fvw* 07:37, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Delete inaccurate slang dicdef Gazpacho 10:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gazpacho says everything I'd more succinctly than I can. Thryduulf 18:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang. Hey, I invented a word with two c00l zeroes in it!. --Deathphoenix 01:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have associated it with the Swedish chef if I heard it (or read it), so can't be that notable. Delete. Stombs 01:45, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

It appears that an article by this name was already deleted. This one is about the girl rather than being a fan letter to her. Non-notable. DCEdwards1966 07:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Previous VfD

Almost patent nonsense, but not quite. Such a shame. --fvw* 23:14, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

• Yes, it was most definitely patent nonsense. Deleted as such. RickK 23:42, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

• It's quite clear there was no consensus, since even the two of you did not agree. Yet again, RickK has acted unilaterally, without any regard for other editors' views. Dr Zen 00:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • The contents were "hey nika i'm Bartek i'm look you in eurovizja I saw you in Eurovision... I have 13 years old and I love you Nika you have msn or skype ??. I saw you in Eurovision... I have 13 years old and I love you I'm from poland i I think that you are beautifull... Your song is the best Nika plz write is me e-mail my e-mail is Szperek1@poczta.onet.pl ok bye". Now explain how that is not speedy delete material. RickK 05:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• • • Rick, all I am saying, you'll note, is that clearly Fvw does not agree and that you have acted unilaterally without regard for his views. Which part of that are you taking issue with? Dr Zen 06:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• delete and move to BJAODN -- WhiteDragon 00:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End previous VfD

This version is not the speedy delete candidate that the above was (and the other was speedy delete material, no matter what Dr. Zen says.) This version is, however, non-notable. Delete. RickK 08:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Very very very weak unless someone can figure out if she's famous in Croatia. --JuntungWu 12:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Her ONLY claim to fame so far is placing 3rd in a talent contest. That by itself does not equal encyclopedic notability. She's very cute and may well be famous some day, but that day is not today. Starblind 15:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Cdc 18:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -R. fiend 18:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please try again when you're notable. Carrp 18:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral.Weak keep. If we delete her, we need to take a serious look at all the linked names at Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004, which is probably why she was created. Redlinks that lead to VfDs when 'fulfilled' discourage new editors. Niteowlneils 18:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS Being the sole representative of her country in an international contest is surely more notable than being a loser on The Apprentice, Big Brother, Survivor, etc. that people often vote to keep. Niteowlneils 18:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with niteowlneils. Keep. Tuf-Kat 22:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I was going to give a weak keep, but now I'll give a full keep having seen the bio on her site. "In 2004 she wrote two songs for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. She sang 'Hej Mail' (Hey, Little Boy) for the national final, which she was voted the winner out of 12 finalists. Her 2nd song 'I can' which was performed by another girl who was awarded 4th place. [sic]." Multiple decent songwriting credits at the age of nine? I understand the reluctance to include everybody who's seen as a televised karaoke contestant, but this accomplishment seems distinct and notable enough. Samaritan 00:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If anything, I would think that having only two songs in her reportoire would be a pretty strong evidence that she's not a serious musician yet. Note that the bio does not suggest any forthcoming albums, singles, tours, concerts, appearances, or anything at all for that matter. The last line is (and I swear I'm not making this up) "Her favourite food is Chicken Wings!" I'm not saying she'll never be famous or encyclopedic, but we have to go with what we have now, not potential for the future. Starblind 01:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Eurovision contestants, like reality show participants, are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 07:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Since the competition Nika has appeared on TV several times and sang at concerts with other famous Croats. She has written other songs but they won't be released until she is a little older. She has had a CD released in Croatia, not bad for a 9 year old. I know there are plans for the future. Personally I think the fact she appeared in a Eurovision contest is the reason for her in this deletion list. She's achieved much more than most Eurovision contestants. She is famous in her home country. markeandrews@gmail.com19:17, 14 Jan 2005 (GMT)
  • Above vote was made by an anonymous editor. --fvw* 01:24, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Keep I'd like to see both pages. Because she appeared on the Junior E.S.C. she's far more famous than 99% of the pop bands and "artists" listed on here. Who are non-entities to the vast majority of the western world and have never been heard of by almost anyone over 40. I think it's discriminating against whoever wrote it to delete it. It can be improved but should be kept by the criteria used at this site. Where can one see the page we're voting on? WikiUser 17:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I make it 4 keeps and 6 deletes on the 2nd page. WikiUser 17:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

I don't think this deserves an article. Possible merge with coffee. DCEdwards1966 07:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge without redirect. --fvw* 07:38, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Agree. Merge without redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge RoySmith 15:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• Merge. Pick this up and merge it into coffee. No redirect. Carrp 23:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirects are a convenient way to preserve the attribution history following a merge (which is a requirement of GFDL). May I ask the three of you why you are opposed to the redirect? Rossami (talk)
• Merge into coffee. No redirect. Megan1967 04:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep/expand or Merge AND redirect, hand-picked coffee is economically, politically and environmentally notable. Thew article is meagre, but worthy of expanding. Pedant 02:23, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

Car mod shop from Grand Theft Auto. Possible merge there. DCEdwards1966 07:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and cleanup. Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. 23skidoo 14:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Since we're not a game manual I have to say delete, but a severe trim and a merge wouldn't be the end of the world. -R. fiend 18:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge if you must. Carrp 23:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. There seem to be a lot of articles for GTA lately. --Deathphoenix 02:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Megan1967 01:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Üqoi

Non-notable conlang. RickK 08:42, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Everyking 16:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Very recent slang applied to a very old style, and even then it is not that common. A short definition with an excerpt from an external website, no real potential to become anything more. Maybe deserves a mention in the main Emo article at most, but a separate article is excessive and unnecessary. →Reene^✎ 09:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• weak delete, possibly merge with an article on stereotypes? Thryduulf 18:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and keep. We have articles on gothic fashion and punk fashion. An article on emo fashion seems needful given these precedents, and here is some data to start with. The info within seems good enough, cites sources and relates it to other things. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just curious: By "cites sources" do you mean the excerpt taken from the Maddox website from an rant he made about camera whores? That's not really a source: and by those standards it wouldn't even belong in Wiktionary, and they're pretty loose about this sort of thing. Also, calling Buddy Holly and his glasses "emo" is pretty absurd considering he existed nearly two decades before "emo" (specifically emo kids and emo fashion) did. Very shaky premise for an article. All this and more is why I feel it isn't deserving of its own article; even an "emo fashion" article is pushing it, as there's not a lot to it and it would easily fit on the main article. →Reene^✎ 01:17, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as suggested by Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön. GRider\^talk 22:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Samaritan 00:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, make a paragraph in emo. Rhobite 23:52, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into emo, or incorporate into a new article on horn-rimmed glasses. Psychonaut 01:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to emo. silsor 01:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge valid content into Emo. No Buddy Holly stuff. - Vague | Rant 01:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or merge into Emo, certainly dont leave as is. Megan1967 04:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Trim, merge and redirect to emo (which currently is a structureless wonder, but that's another matter). This doesn't deserve it's own article, and the Buddy Holly stuff should just go from a merged version — the connection is iffy at best. We can have emo fashion if that ever branches out from the main article. Calling these glasses "emo" and tying them to Buddy Holly is a silly POV. JRM 23:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• Keep -- valid, plus slightly humorous. Ekips 02:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ekips' 5th contribution ever, and first since March 2004. - Vague | Rant 03:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and keep to horn-rimmed glasses or Nerd glasses or similiar. --Pengo 09:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to emo. FYI these glasses are neither horn-rimmed glasses nor nerd glasses. They look like this. Gazpacho 23:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • In pop culture, thick, black, square-rimmed glasses (such as the ones in that image) have typically been associated with nerds and geeks. Their assumption as an aspect of "emo culture" (heh) is very recent, on the line of just a few years (I was in high school at the time, and was perplexed at the sudden spike in the number of people who wore glasses identical to mine). And the glasses are still commonly associated with nerds and geeks moreso than they are emo kids. →Reene^✎ 00:30, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

    Glasses recognized as "emo" have shorter lenses than those recognized as "nerd" glasses. Henry Kissinger, for example, is not emo! And yes, it is a recent development. Gazpacho

    • On this point I would have to disagree: While it is true that longer lenses are typical of male "nerd" glasses, females were (and are) often depicted wearing a shorter lense compared to the male glasses. Indeed this is the reason I picked up my old pair initially, as I thought they were cute and was surprised at the open embracing of geek fashion. Of course this was before I realized what they were being marketed as, and was just before they became very popular in my area. I suppose that's neither here nor there though, and we'll have to agree to disagree. →Reene^✎ 02:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's encyclopedic. Rename if there's a more valid name, however "emo glasses" gets plenty of Google hits. The recentness of the term is not an issue, this is Wikipedia after all, and up-to-datedness is a feature not a bug. This is not someone's original-research attempt to coin a neologism, as Google hits show it's a well-established term. Of course, Buddy Holly didn't call them "emo glasses" because back then all glasses looked like that. But Buddy Holly didn't refer to his TV set as a black-and-white over-the-air analog television, because that's all they had back then too. The new name of "emo glasses" is simply an example of a retronym. Having an article on this style of glasses is no different from having an article on Pince-nez aka Oxford glasses. The article should exist; what to call it is another issue. If there's some more standard name, emo glasses should be renamed to that and survive as a redirect. -- Curps 06:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Buddy Holly wasn't emo, nor was his style (of music or dress). Saying it was does not make it true. The fact that the author of this article is attempting to draw weak parallels between Buddy Holly and his style of dress to one very tiny element of so-called "emo fashion" is just an attempt on their part to make this seem somehow valid as a stand-alone article. →Reene^✎ 07:07, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well then the article should be edited, not deleted. There should be a standalone article on this style of glasses just like there is a standalone article on pince-nez glasses. Google gets around 4500 hits for "emo glasses" so the name seems well-established. -- Curps 07:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Google gets nearly 6,000 hits for "nerd glasses" and over 2,000 for "geek glasses", which is the same style with a name that has been established for much longer. →Reene^✎ 07:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, then perhaps rename to nerd glasses with geek glasses and emo glasses as redirects, and edit accordingly. Although some seem to argue above that nerd glasses and emo glasses aren't quite the same thing. Maybe ask on Wikipedia:Peer review if they really are the same. -- Curps 08:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to one of emo or emo fashion. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 07:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or if possible Merge with the emo-culture article or some such article suggested on here. -CunningLinguist 01:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Emo --GaidinBDJ 15:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Emo. There's really not much to say on the topic of glasses here, but definatly needs to be mentioned in the core article. --InShaneee 15:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

• Single character within a game - Skysmith 11:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• merge somewhere or keep Kappa 15:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge RoySmith 15:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Though if someone wants to include a short blurb about this on the appropriate game page then go ahead. -R. fiend 18:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good old Woozie. Gave me some of my best jobs, but not sufficiently notable for his own page. TigerShark 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate GTA article. 23skidoo 21:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge yet another GTA article with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. --Deathphoenix 02:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable enough to warrant its own page. Megan1967 04:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] M-.-n

Irrelevant article - contains no useful information.

• Such an obvious Delete, not sure why it's worth voting on.RoySmith 15:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy ? Gtabary 15:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vainity, advertisement, where's the need to vote?--InShaneee 16:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete definitely should go, but not really a speedy candidate. Starblind 16:24, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline speedy, part of the same Wikispam series as 10pm, just speedied. Andrewa 17:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A speedy deletion is likely in order. Carrp 18:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10pm

Whatever this is, it sure isn't encyclopedic. Assuming mostly an ad, possibly a test page, or both. Complete text is "What do you guys think about nonlinear (experimental) webdesign? In the past it has always annoyed me, but I think it's starting to grow on me." and then a link. Starblind 14:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• obvious Delete RoySmith 15:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedied by user:Duncharris, good call IMO. Andrewa 17:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aliet

Almost a candidate for speedy deletion. I'd almost classify this as an anti-vanity page as it is POV and libellous against a non-notable subject. --Deathphoenix 15:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be in reference to activities on http://www.iidb.org , not notable either way. Starblind 15:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gtabary 15:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 16:41, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be a speedy, the evidence is overwhelming that this is not in good faith. Andrewa 17:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Hoary 01:57, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 04:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as libel. Wyss 07:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes H. Berg Jr.

from VfD:

non-famous, only 17 hits in Norwegian language [6]

• Comment Originally posted to VFD by anon User:83.109.174.178. -Rholton 16:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Keep. Does not meet Wiki's criteria for deletion and the revision history demonstrates that multiple users have contributed and therefore feel it belongs. -shsilver
• Keep Yet another vote I suspect we wouldn't be having it the subject was an American. Philip 18:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obscure and unknown to me, but I don't see a reason to delete. Carrp 18:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative Delete. Doesn't sound notable even from the description, unless there is an established precedent that being prominent in fandom is sufficient grounds for a page. -- Walt Pohl 18:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough. If Bjo Trimble warrants a page, so does this fellow as he sounds like the Norwegian equivalent. 23skidoo 21:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that she merits a page either. -- Walt Pohl 05:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He gets far more hits than 17. You have to search for "Johannes H. Berg". Quite often Jr. isn't written. Jeltz talk 22:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For all keep reasons mentioned above. bbx 02:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. Megan1967 04:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.JuntungWu 13:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [[User:Stude62|user: stude62 talk:stude62]] 22:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] The Alliance of the Cradle of Mystery

I can find no mention of this secret society anywhere. I know, it's secret. But who are we to reveal such a well-kept secret? I'm not even sure this page rises above patent nonsense. It's certainly not verifiable. -Rholton 16:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible joke by anon, possible element of some ficton, most probably both. Who cares? Secrets should be kept. Andrewa 17:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe there's a place for this somewhere on the web, but it's not here. Carrp 18:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The Alliance does exist, granted we aren't big, powerful or old but we are here. We are mentioned on the secret society page under the student societies, upon reflection maybe we really aren't big enough to be there, and so I'll remove that reference and not put any other references anywhere else on wikipedia. In return I ask you to consider letting us keep this page of our own, we'll be no trouble, honest!
  • This post by the article's author. We don't any of us own individual articles, there are other Wikis you might try if that's what you want. See your talk page for more comments. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone greatly expands the article so it doesn't come off sounding like vanity or fancruft for an unspecified RPG or sci-fi franchise.
  • (Sigh) you're supposed to be on my side. Please sign your posts, 23skidoo. Andrewa 23:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know what vanity or funcruff are, but I've expanded the article and hope it doesn't sound like either.
  • Info about vanity pages: Wikipedia:Vanity page. As for what Cruff and Fancruff are I've been wondering myself, but have only just bothered to look for a defintion. Unfortunately there are no matches on wikipedia, wiktionary or google (other than Cruff as a surname). Thryduulf 22:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) (this is not a vote).
    • You spelled it wrong, that's why you diidn't find anything. :) Wikipedia:Fancruft - Jeltz talk 23:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ps: please could you sign your name after your comments. to do this type ~~~ for just your name, or ~~~~ for your name and the current date and time. Thryduulf 22:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This post of course also by the article author. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. RickK 23:02, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this to help them protect their secret. They wouldn't want to see their secret society on google, right? Then it wouldn't be very secret. - Jeltz talk 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, otherwise the Alliance will hunt down the original author. --Deathphoenix 02:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm the original author, and I now agree with you, maybe wikipedia is not the place for this. We will find a new home
• Delete. Unverifiable. jni 17:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 18:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research—unless verifiable sources are presented confirming the existence of the society and the accuracy of the information in the article prior to expiration of VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

from VfD:

Quite simply the content of this article does not match its title. The content could be merged into the appropriate articles, but its very POV and smells like a copyvio too, although Google can't find it. Of course the page should be kept if someone writes a good stub. David Johnson [T|C] 17:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• move to apropriate articles and reword to be NPOV if possible. Also point the author in the direction of WikiTravel. Thryduulf 18:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Are there any Wikipedians from Spain who could come along to explain how Los Cristianos is related to Arona? All I know is that there seems to be a Hotel Gran Arona in Los Cristianos. --Deathphoenix 02:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, looks like a tourist brochure. Megan1967 04:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a travel ad, there's little content here without the PoV. Keep, article now provides evidence this topic is encyclopedic, thanks Capitalistroadster. Wyss 17:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Arona is a borough or municipality of Tenerife. As at 1996, its population was 28,000 having doubled in fifteen years. It contains the resorts of Los Cristianos, Playa de las Americas, Costa del Silencio and Playa de las Vistas. I have added information on geography, history and economy and removed the tourist brochure material. Capitalistroadster 09:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for the information, Capitalistroadster. Trying to sift through googled tourist information confused me to no end. --Deathphoenix 01:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep

as rewritten. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion renames Arona,Tenerife,as other name santa cruz just confuses peole not in the know,,cannot just call it ARONA as other places with this name ARONA THORtenerife 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National League One

Article consists only of an external link.
This link should be added to one of the existing Rugby Union pages, possibly English Rugby Union teams or Zurich Premiership. Thryduulf 17:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, website promo, no content. Megan1967 04:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then Speedy Delete as spam, the entire article consists of a live link. Wyss 07:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Website promo? The only link is to a BBC Sport page. (Confusingly, the corresponding Rugby League division is also called National League One. That one's covered in Rugby League National Leagues.) Merge, if anything suitable can be found. Raven42 07:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of a Rugby Union equivalent of the Rugby League National Leagues. Perhaps one is needed? Thryduulf 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assoziazione Bandiera Rossa

I've no idea what this is supposed to be, but it gets no Google hits (apart from Wikipedia). The party mentioned in the article, Party of Communist Refoundation, gets 512 Google hits. I know Google isn't definitive, but as far as I can tell the topic of the article is not notable. Might be speedyable as short with no context, but I thought I'd better list it here as I'm not sure about it. David Johnson [T|C] 17:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, no content. Carrp 18:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as Carrp. No content qualifies it for a CSD, does it not? --Deathphoenix 03:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, no content. Megan1967 04:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to provide evidence of notability, so close to a speedy it's got windburn. Wyss 07:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B Man

Doesn't seem notable. David Johnson [T|C] 19:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I smell vanity. 23skidoo 21:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, page appears to have been blanked. Megan1967 03:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page was turned into a redirect, then listed on RfD; deleting now. Noel (talk) 16:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) from VfD:

• del. Vanity. Mikkalai 19:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google search seems to indicate this guy is notable enough to warrant a page. TigerShark 21:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, I noticed this. The overwhelming majority from sites that sell skateboards. Let's join the promotion for free, why not? Mikkalai 23:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please do some research before nominating articles for deletion. He appears to be one of the leading global figures in his field. Philip 00:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you update the article with his achievements, then? I freely admit that I didn't dig deep, and my opinion may be wrong, but my impression that most of 14,800 google hits (which boil down to 656, with google ghosts eliminated) is one huge scateboard ad. If you think that this number warrants wikiarticle, fine with me, but not this kind of article. Mikkalai 00:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This page could certainly use some work with perhaps less emphasis on the guy's sponsors and more about him and his achievements. It doesn't seem to simply be a promotion tool for the skateboard companies because most of the links are dead. Needs work at some point, but I still feel that this is not a deletion candidate right now. If no further work is done on the article then a deletion in the future may be appropriate. TigerShark 01:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article tells us the man's occupation, date of birth, home, height, and weight (It's almost the classic Vanity article.) and fails to tell us any reason that he is notable. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a database of the ages, physical proportions, and occupations of all of the people in the world. Uncle G 02:56, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, individual skateboard endorsement contracts are not inherently encyclopedic, article provides no evidence of significant accomplishment as a skateboarder. Wyss 07:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Skateboarder of the Year for 2003 according to Thrasher magazine. 1. Significant skateboarder and notable enough for wikipedia. Will try to cleanup article over weekend. Capitalistroadster 10:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you have interest in this, please look into category:Skateboarders. Some guys are described in 10 words. Mikkalai 03:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• mild keep, reword to be less about his sponsors and more about him though. Thryduulf 13:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs cleanup. Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Does anybody wonder why I don't hold any grudges against, say, Steve Caballero skateboard guy? Mikkalai
• Keep it. Agree that this does need some cleanup. —RaD Man (talk) 23:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not cleanup. GRider\^talk 23:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• You guys are funny. Did you happen to look into the article? It is perfectly clean! (And void). Mikkalai 00:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Peyman

Interesting? Not very. Notable? Less. Encyclopedic? Perhaps, but only on a list of Persian names. Smoddy | Talk 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No real point. 23skidoo 21:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notability. --Deathphoenix 03:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. Wyss 07:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I thought these got transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

from VfD:

I don't feel that this notable enough to warrant its own page. It should perhaps be deleted and the contents merged into a page dedicated to the band. TigerShark 20:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article can, should be and will be expanded. I think it is notable enough, as Collective Soul is a fairly famous band. More than 133,000 google hits, most of which appear to be about this album. (for those interested, Wikipedia is the 28th hit)Tuf-Kat 22:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not one who thinks absolutely every recording known to man needs its own article, but this is a fairly major one by a fairly major artist. A better title would be Dosage (album) though IMO. Starblind 22:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would agree with the move if there was something at Dosage about the general idea. I'm certain it is encyclopedic and there could be an article there, but there isn't one now. Tuf-Kat 23:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Also same with Blender (album). They aren't orphaned pages, but linking to the main bands page via the nav box. Agreed they could have more information about the album, but it is stubbed after all. Also, move page to new title like suggested above. Inter 23:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have a lot of albums by groups less notable than this. RickK 23:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the previous entries, although I do note that I am biased given that I did start the article, and I agree with the move to Dosage (album) as well. PlasticBeat 23:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A major-label, full-length, original release by an internationally famous rock group. Keep. Samaritan 00:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DCEdwards1966 00:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Dosage (album) for the reasons specified above. --Deathphoenix 03:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, borderline notability. I'm not convinced that this needs its own article. Megan1967 03:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I hope to add more info after weekend. Notable album by notable band. Support move to Dosage (album). Capitalistroadster 10:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Dosage (album). -Sean Curtin 22:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg

Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg

Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lz96.org

VfD tag placed on article 7:36, 9 Jan 2005, but no VfD sub-page created. Procedural, but since it is a school's "student-run website", lean towards delete. 3 google hits, no alexa rank. Niteowlneils 20:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks more like an advertisement to me. The only useful information in this article which you can't find on the actual website is probably the date of creation. Inter 22:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As a school site, I wouldn't call it an ad, but it's certainly in the realm of vanity. --Deathphoenix 06:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP not a web guide. Wyss 07:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCoD

Some rambling related to Harry Potter--doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. 29 displayed hits for "Blue Candy of Doom". Niteowlneils 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Recreated content, unless I'm mistaken. Xezbeth 21:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is the second time this has been on VfD, different title this time, not 100% sure whether the article is the same. I've heard it argued that if an article keeps getting deleted and recreated, that's a strong chance it should stay. But an article about one graphic, that appeared on a website, for a short time, that was probably a bug even then... it should go. Again. Starblind 22:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be a speedy. Recreated article, slightly different content but the same intent, which is to create or promote an Internet phenomenon based on this. Andrewa 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- I just listed this for speedy as it has been deleted at least once before (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BCoD 04). DCEdwards1966 03:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good call. Now speedied by user:Hadal. I would have speedied it myself had I been able to remember the previous name, well done. Andrewa 09:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

from VfD:

I don't feel that this notable enough to warrant its own page. It should perhaps be deleted and the contents merged into a page dedicated to the band. See also Dosage. TigerShark 21:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems notable enough to me, as Collective Soul is a pretty famous band. Gets more than 8000 google hits. The album also includes Elton John on one track, which signicantly ups its notability IMO. Tuf-Kat 22:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not one who thinks absolutely every recording known to man needs its own article, but this is a fairly major one by a fairly major artist. Starblind 22:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Also same with Dosage. They aren't orphaned pages, but linking to the main bands page via the nav box. Agreed they could have more information about the album, but it is stubbed after all. Inter 22:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the previous entries, although I do note that I am biased given that I did start the article. PlasticBeat 23:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep albums articles by notable bands. RickK 23:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• A major-label, full-length, original release by an internationally famous rock band. Keep. Samaritan 00:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DCEdwards1966 01:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, marginal notability. I'm still not convinced that a stub like this deserves its own article. Megan1967 03:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable album by notable band. Hope to add further info over weekend. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Tuf-Kat. JuntungWu 13:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. GRider\^talk 23:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg

Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg

Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Cold War

This is the second time that someone has started an article on his own personal guesswork with this title ("Second Cold War"). Delete. 172 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• No references provided. Original thesis. Delete. Uncle G 00:52, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 03:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, well-written original research is still original research. --Deathphoenix 06:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, deep thoughts. Wyss 07:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The concept of a second cold war is a genuine subject in the world today. -- Old Right 00:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a popular topic, especially since Americans are uneasy about losing their place as the world's sole superpower.
• Comment The possibility of a second Cold War may not be remote. The U.S. government could be trying to cover up growing darkness in its waning economy and influence. 68.23.44.205 19:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article may be useful later when the fate of the U.S. is decided.
• Delete. It's original research/political commentary. If any of these things come to pass, then we can have an article about it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see any problem with putting a political theory in wikipedia. Perhaps the page could simply use a little editing to make it more relavent to the "real" world. -- Judson 06:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misfits of hogwarts

Fanfic written by a 13 year old girl. Hardly notable. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Thryduulf 22:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The page is frankly a mess and even if it was properly cleaned up and wikified, it conveys information which isn't notable. Inter 22:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete amicably. Blanked by the author, which I see as another vote for deletion. Hey, we are all learning. Andrewa 23:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I hope this user considers creating an account and contributing more to Wikipedia. I think this is a reasonably well-written article but, unfortunately, the topic is not encyclopedic. I didn't notice any spelling errors, the grammar and sentence structure are mostly good, a small number problems with capitalization and punctuation. I think the material might have been better formatted as a list of bullet points than as conventional paragraphs. This would be suitable material for the contributor's user page. (I really hate to mention this, but, the Internet being what it is, if the contributor is young, he or she should pick a user name that is not his or her real name, and should avoid mentioning his or her age). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable subset of a notable subject (Harry Potter series). I agree with Dpbsmith that this material is better suited to a user page and the user herself deserves welcome and encouragement.--Deathphoenix 01:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a user test. She may come back with something more encyclopedic. Wyss 07:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN K1Bond007 03:27, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SuperThinking (computer program)

Non-notable piece of software. Only one hit for "SuperThinking" microsoft that's not Wikipedia or superthinking.com. Niteowlneils 22:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 23:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Megan1967 03:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable software, probable ad. --Deathphoenix 06:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, novelty software ad. Wyss 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Software is unique and notable. In contradistinction to the other (exclusively 2-dimensional) software tools noted in the topic, this software promotes and engages the user in the quintessential mind mapping skill: non-linear thinking. The user is empowered to create a 3-dimensional web of subtopics that is simple to construct and navigate. Intricate, expansive, detailed maps can be created without any scrolling; holistic viewpoints are an integrated feature, and stream of consciousness thinking is a natural byproduct of map creation. Rvanschaik 19:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Femdom cartoons

Hardly big enough of a subset of cartoons in general to warrant its own article. Sort of like saying "Robot cartoons are cartoons about robots". Worse still, seems to just be a place to stick a link. Starblind 22:38, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• delete Just a link to an external site. Should be speedied Johntex 22:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No value. — PMcM 23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, there is possibly an article out of this if someone can be bothered to expand it but as it stands it looks like an ad for a website. Megan1967 03:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible vanity ad, which is an ad of the vanity variety. --Deathphoenix 06:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant spam, should be speedied but perhaps someone can make an article out of it before its VfD round is up. Wyss 06:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoan

Vanity. Smoddy | Talk 22:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. Inter 23:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. RickK 00:47, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 06:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity self-promotion. Wyss 06:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Tatum

Shameless vanity. Smoddy | Talk 22:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. Inter 23:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. I love it when people write "Please do not delete this". --Deathphoenix 06:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a vanity prank. Wyss 06:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sure this can be interpreted as being in some sort of speedy deletion criteria. No one will miss it. Call it a user test or something. -R. fiend 17:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a newbie test page. jni 17:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• While definitely deletable, it does not meet the current specific criteria for speedy deletion. You'd have the stretch the "newbie test page" well beyond its original intent to make this fit. Rossami (talk) 22:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right about the policy, it is quite strict indeed. However, I have seen admin's stretching it well beyond the limits for articles that are more complex than this two-liner. I striked out the "speedy"-word to make my vote a normal delete since there's no consensus for my original interpretation. jni 10:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hell, call it "vandalism" (which it basically is) and delete it post haste. No one will miss it, and you'll be doing Wikipedia a favor. Keeping crap like this for 5 days or more is insulting. -R. fiend 17:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)