Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 3

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

The result was delete, after discounting obvious (G)astrotufing. Guy 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Stanley

"Don't delete!" Third most influential Christian in America by a recent survey of other national church leaders. Sure, the post could be edited some, but certainly he is worthy of mention on Wikipedia

• Don't delete A very influentail christain pastor.

Don't delete Andy Stanley, along with Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Jon Dupin are quickly becoming the leaders of a new Christian movement.

• Don't Delete. OF COURSE NOT!! He is one of the most influential Christians in the United States and he is a rising public figure in Christian Circles.
• Don't Delete. I and most of my Christian friends in the UK have heard of him, as have a bunch of people I know in Germany. He is important in Christian circles.

Delete, not notable. This is linked to from Dallas Theological Seminary though.-gadfium 02:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Really, it's so fragmentary and lacking in context it's a speedy. Wyss 02:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 12:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Check out the latest edits. He was voted the 13th most influential Christian in America and North Point church was voted the 3rd most influential church in America.
• Delete as nom. C56C 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete Not notable? He is important and notable in the Christian community.
• Delete As noted above, this is not a notable individual. Tarc 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete His ministry has influenced 10's of thousands locally and probably more through books and mass media.
• Don't Delete A person who has authored twelve books, pastors one of the largest churches in the US and was voted the 13th most influential Christian in America is very notable. Celzrro 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete!! Just because some people haven't heard of NPCC and Andy Stanley doesn't mean he isn't note worthy. If you threw out all the "lesser known" people on the site, you wouldn't have anything left. Don't Delete! Andy Stanley is a very influental person in the Christian world.

• Don't Delete If Phil Pringle quotes him he is worthy of note in my book. --Killerisation 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete --LifeStar 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was - Deleted --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parijata Mackey

student at Dr. Michael M. Krop High School, apparently did well in a science fair Michael Ward 06:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete --Boothy443 06:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we get proof that she's really a scientist at 17. Lacrimosus 06:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete -- Cleduc 06:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, borders on nonsense, except she's really that brilliant. Dbenbenn 04:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like nonsense or vanity to me -- Chris 73 Talk 04:22, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this isn't vanity, I'll eat my shoe. --InShaneee 04:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks like you'll be eating your shoe, pal, I didn't write a word of this...

[edit] New Zealand humour

[edit] Digitalspark

As far as I can tell, this is a vanity page. There are about 30 people in the directory, and a Google links search on link:http://www.digitalspark.net/ returns only nine hits. I see no evidence of encyclopedic signifigance. --Kelly Martin 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Vanity Page Kensho 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article states its self-nonnotability: "...designed specifically for a small group of friends...". jni 06:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn promo. gosh, even says it was made by a troll. Cleduc 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity --Wikimol 09:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (if you agree this stuff should be speedy deleteted, you can vote for extension of speedy deletion criteria, proposals III and XI)
• Delete, way nn. Wyss 04:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ensoc

It's a student club in a university - not even for all students but for a small subsection of them. The article is short, not particularly encyclopaedic (and probably never will be), and whiffs a little of vanity. The relevant info from it could be moved to the University's article if necessary. Grutness|^hello? 06:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Perhaps redirectable to Ingsoc? --fvw* 17:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Cdc 17:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is so wrong (nn). Wyss 04:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I attend the University of Canterbury. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

A quarter of all undergraduates at Canterbury join ENSOC voluntarily each year. For many it is a deciding factor in attending the University. It is a very memorable part of many peoples lives. It was established in 1897, incorporated in 1968 and has a turn over of NZ$0.25MPA. The biggest tradition mentioned on the University wiki entry is an ENSOC event - the "Undie 500". Please do not delete this reference to this learned society with an extremely proud history. www.ensoc.com

[edit] George Dracos

*SIGH* More vanity/self promotional spam from User:Baoutrust. 9 hits on google and, surprise surprise, the top hits come from BAOU PRODUCTS. [3] Someone please help me vett out the remaining spam trail left behind by this user, ASAFP! —RaD Man (talk) 06:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

• Delete, extremely. What are the qualifications for speedy deletion again? This user is spamming Wikipedia far and wide. Also see Baou Trust, Kaith and QuakeAID. (There may be many more, the assistance of the Wikipedia community is requested.) —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. spam. Cleduc 07:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --MarkSweep 10:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, vanity. *sigh*. --kooo 11:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, spam. --Wikimol 08:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. GRider\^talk 18:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately it's not a speedy, but it's a blatant vanity ad. Wyss 04:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, spam, ad. Somebody in the WWW 07:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, spam.-gadfium 19:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Nuke It  ALKIVAR™ 05:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forge&Anvil

This page should be merged into something, probably Marathon Infinity, which is a redirect to Marathon (computer game) -- which happens to already contain basically all the same content as this page. Therefore, recommend delete as already merged. --Kelly Martin 06:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn and pointless cruft. Cleduc 07:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant and trivial substub. jni 08:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Wilkinson

apparent nonsense e.g. "Nobody knows who his father is but they're guessing it was Liza Minelli." Michael Ward 06:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Offensive hoax, libel. jni 07:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity hoax. Cleduc 07:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as libel. "...banned from the Childrens Ward at St Cathedys Hospital for allegedly molestering [sic] a bed stricken leukemia suffering child..."; otherwise unbelievable hoaxy nonsense. Samaritan 08:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Platin

This article doesn't reach notability. The subject is an author wannabee and a very minor actor (single credited role is on a documentary). The credit is verifiable (found him listed on a talent search agency via Google). -- Kelly Martin 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Cleduc 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Wikimol 10:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Rje 13:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline non-existent. GRider\^talk 19:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stealthy ad for a book. Wyss 04:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grinch Song

It's a song, and probably a copyvio to boot. --Carnildo 08:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The song's been removed, and now the article is largely content-free. --Carnildo 08:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. copyright. Cleduc 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think many people would be searching for it on Wikipedia. Not culturally significant. :) Cookiecaper 08:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates content from How the Grinch Stole Christmas, more or less. I'd suggest merging, but there's no reason for that since Grinch Song has nothing to add (although it might not hurt to make reference to the edits in the TV cartoon in the main article). Also anyone looking for an article on "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" would probably look under that title rather than "Grinch Song" so it was a bad article title, to boot. I disagree about the song itself not being culturally significant. Anyone who lives in North America who grew up on it would beg to differ! If someone wants to write an article about the song that isn't copyvio and has some content, I'm sure that would be cool. 23skidoo 01:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. I wouldn't touch this article with a... never mind. Already mentioned in the Grinch article. Gazpacho 06:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• 11 and 1/2 foot pole! In that deep voice... Redirect to How the Grinch Stole Christmas. hfool/Roast me 23:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star trek battles

Orphaned article full of fancruft. Maybe something can be merged to Star Trek, but as an extra complication there is a dispute over contents. Several people in Talk-page say they cannot verify the details in article, hinting that the contents are either micro-trivia even for trekkies or just made up. Delete. jni 08:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is utter nonsense, even by Trek standards. "During their civil war, 200 years ago, the f-borgs have taken over control a Xandrian Cube, who has the same description as the Borg Cube." Oh, come on. We no doubt have a fully equipped staff of Trek experts in Wikipedia :-) and even they can't make sense of it. JRM 10:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a Trekkie and can safely say that article is a pile of pants. Over-active imagination? Dan100 11:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, undecipherable nonsense. Rje 13:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 90% is non-canon garbage. Famartin 14:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Garbage K1Bond007 20:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as currently stands. What little is here is fanon, not canon. Pretty useless. An article on canonical Star Trek battles might be interesting, but this ain't it. 23skidoo 01:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing salvageable for a merge. I'm a big Star Trek fan, but this is just nonsense. (Although I agree; a completely rewritten-from-scratch article on Star Trek battles might be appropriate for an encyclopedia.) — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Mrwojo 22:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rewrite this article, but only with canonical information. Carioca 00:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Resistance is futile! This article will be deleted! Ben Standeven 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chucklez D Glutton

Looks like a hoax. Spectacularly fails google test. [4] [5] —Korath (Talk) 09:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless independently verified; vanity. Not a hoax as such: [6]; he seems to exist and hang out in hip-hop circles, but whether the rest is in any way true is another matter. JRM 10:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --fvw* 17:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wyss 03:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article establishes notability. Note: if it could be verified that he won two Juno Awards, that would make him notable. However, the lack of google hits makes me suspicious that he actually won the awards. Tuf-Kat 00:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Ryan and the Nosebreakers

A page that has escaped our attention for three weeks. Message: You, reader, suck. Whether the band exists or not seems to be irrelevant. <KF> 10:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Horribly written vanity. "Anger-core is the heart of everything that you want to be at." Oh, I'm angry alright. JRM 10:26, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Start a fire eh, let's start with this, Delete. Rje 13:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm not angry but I could be described as being a tad annoyed. Does that count? --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• I'd say so. Just don't start any fires. Me, I'm slightly miffed. Is there a doctor in the house? Ryan needs a Zoloft. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. BTW, this article would be covered by the non-subjective speedy delete rule for vanities that I have suggested. Gazpacho 06:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity ad (yep, all three). This could even be speedied for lack of context and/or silly vandalism. Wyss 03:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The answer to all your questions about Angry Ryan is: Delete this article. Lacrimosus 08:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article sucks, and so do you, but your cousin's band is pretty good. Tuf-Kat 00:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Icon Design

non-encyclopedic dictdef. DCEdwards1966 10:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: there's far more there than a dicdef - none of the second paragraph would find its way into a dictionary and looks encyclopaedic to me. quite interesting stub.--Tomheaton 11:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see this as an unencyclopedic topic (or unencyclopedic content), nor a dicdef. — Ливай | ☺ 13:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could do with some good and bad examples though. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with above keep votes. Kappa 16:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The additions since the VfD tag was added are beginning to make a difference. This really should have been tagged for cleanup or substub rather than VfD. iMeowbot~Mw 16:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, definately tag as needing {{attention}} though. --fvw* 17:31, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Keep, seems noteworthy. —RaD Man (talk) 04:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, people often mistake icons as trivial, but they're a fundamental part of the GUIs most of us use, and many developers not only put much thought into them, but hire graphic artists to produce them (it's quite a specialty). Wyss 03:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

fancruft. Possible merge somewhere. DCEdwards1966 10:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Pierson's Puppeteer. —Korath (Talk) 11:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ringworld or Pierson's Puppeteer until it's large enough. Keep the redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agree with MacGyverMagic. Rje 13:01, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Pierson's Puppeteer, since this isn't exclusive to the book Ringworld. Bryan 16:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not run by the Outsiders. Merge. DS 17:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merged and expanded somewhat. Is creating the redirect OK? hfool/Roast me 00:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Bart Roorda

Not notable enough for an article, in my opinion. A guy who has his own moderately successful website. Many google hits for his name, but most of those are posts to online forums and guestbooks, hits for other people with the same name, and other irrelevant hits. Sietse 10:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sahba

vanity DCEdwards1966 11:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mailer Diablo 11:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Rje 13:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant vanity. Possibly may be speedy deleted because lack of context. --Wikimol 08:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as possible libel. Wyss 03:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramunas Geciauskas

Seems like vanity to me; lots of non-existant article links. Alphax (talk) 12:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete apparent vanity Cdc 17:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, v. Wyss 03:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, He's a well known hacker. 22:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable vanity. GRider\^talk 21:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think he created RexEdit [7] and was one of UnrealIRCD [8] maintainers. 18:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- DCEdwards1966 17:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timo Noko

I don't think that this person is really that encyclopedic. OK, he has a hobby that takes him to exotic locations, but if we had a page for everyone who did that we would need a lot more servers. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity. Delete. Phils 15:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Same as above. Delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (I've changed my vote - the revised article establishes notability.) --LeeHunter 17:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a kayaker could persuade us otherwise. (Even though he seems a million times more notable and interesting than Neutron Stampeder, which doesn't even exist. Oh, right, "Neutron Stampeder" appeared in a TV series.) Hoary 05:53, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) Neutral; I really don't know. -- Hoary 06:59, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Wyss 03:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I Dont Care, deleted Wikipedia page would be funnier and make an excellent point in Who-is-Who. At least fi.wikipedia is run by Juvenile Nazi Rats. by Timo Noko
  • That comment was added at 18:38, 2005 Jan 5 by 62.248.166.74 (no other contribution so far). Still having distinctly mixed feelings about the article (including the idea that a famously boring person who actually appears quite innovative is hugely more interesting and encyclopedia-worthy than yet more shovelfuls of Star Trek fancruft, etc.), I've tweaked the article slightly. Hoary 03:41, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, definately not a pan-european celebrity. --fvw* 07:41, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  • Correction, celebrated (sortof :-) also in Netherlandian TV: http://www.omroep.nl/nps/tv/urbania/cityfolk/cityfolkafl5_04.html . Timo Noko
    • Having been on tv and being a celebrity are not quite the same. --fvw* 04:22, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
• Why?, I made an entry of the most celebrated Noko ever, black african named Ishmael Noko. This arcticle seems to have deleted automatically. This system sucks more than I thought it would. Timo Noko. ... added by 62.248.176.87

We pause our list for one moment. Look, IP number(s) who claim(s) to be and may actually be Timo Noko, the sole question here is whether Wikipedia (and not Timo Noko) benefits from having an article on Timo Noko, or more strictly whether this article falls in one or other of the classes for deletion. You may think that this procedure is more or less unsatisfactory, or that the rules are silly, but this isn't the place to express such opinions. Please make a username for yourself and use it; you can express your opinions on Wikipedia on your user page. Incidentally, the article on Ishmael Noko still exists. And now, back to regular programming. -- Hoary 11:52, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

• OK, Khmer Noko seems to be popular fella also. --Timonoko 13:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The Point. May I point out that the very moment I started planning this entry some corporate rat (of Nokia) started to vote it out. I really am not no-body. Very nasty legal action and revealing TV-show about hiring practises of The Company (Nokia) is pending. It is not all about me, two of the long-standing chair-members (of Nokia) have resigned right after reporters started asking questions couple of months ago. I am of course on a personal vendetta (against Nokia and associated persons) and may not be available, when everybody asks "Why?". This is why I would prefer this self-made encyclopedia entry.. --Timonoko 15:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Timo (or other interested persons), please see my response to this on your talk page. And now, back to votes. -- Hoary 04:14, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
• Delete. He is not notable here in Finland or anywere else for that matter. There are some Google hits because he has been quite active in the Internet, but not much more than other long time net users. He has been mostly touting his hatred towards Nokia in Usenet. According to his own homepage, he was fired from Nokia in 1990 for "continuously neglecting his duties" and has been unemployed eversince due to alleged world-wide conspiracy of tech companies agains him led by Nokia. Quite a sad story, but we must draw the line what is encyclopedic somewhere. Other reasons for deletion besides notability include vanity and self-promotion. jni 19:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This farce has served its purpose. But before you do, please read the transcript of yesterday's TV-show: http://www.yle.fi/mot/kj050117/englishscript.htm -- --Timonoko 22:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved to User:Timonoko and deleted. RickK 06:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did Not Bite Human

Was tagged as speedy, but does not meet speedy criteria. Still looks rather non-notable. -- Ferkelparade π 15:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Does not establish notability. Delete --fvw* 17:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Wyss 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Also see Sean McCarron and Destroy All Robots. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kholousy

The author doesn't intend to clean it up apparantly, and I don't see how this could become worthwhile. --fvw* 16:00, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently just a family name. Google shows 17 hits for Kholousy and 172 for Kholoussy with nothing that indicates the family itself is notable (or has connections to royalty). --LeeHunter 16:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article provides no evidence of notability. Geneaology. Wyss 03:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Johnson (analyst)

Vanity. Works in the back office of a major league baseball club. --LeeHunter 16:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless, banal vanity. C'mon, Mark! You're obviously a bright guy. Why not establish an account and contribute for real? - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, CV, vanity, sounds like someone was bored on a bad day. Wyss 03:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hrunism

This is far too coherent to be nonsense, but I found nothing whatsoever on Google for anything pertaining to it, even when I tried with various alternate spellings, which leads me to the conclusion that it's bullshit. I'll admit that "Hrun" is quite a common string, though. DS 17:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete unless reputable source discovered. nothing on google. nothing in no.wikipedia.org Michael Ward 21:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Previously undiscovered ideology. --LeeHunter 03:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vandalism, non existent cult with non existent ideology.Stirling Newberry 04:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Vote for Speedy and banning of the User who blanked this page to hide the VfD.
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 03:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kanibal Korndog

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. While we're at it, we should delete Karny and Korndog, which both redirect to here. DS 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, delete, all three delete. Michael Ward 18:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Punk kids. :) Delete. -RidG (talk) 20:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable 15-year-old. — Ливай | ☺ 02:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A.S.A.P. Vanity.MpegMan 02:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GRider\^talk 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all three, vanity. Megan1967 00:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them, v. Wyss 03:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crateball

typical tiresome me-and-my-friend-made-up-a-game article. notability negligible. Michael Ward 18:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 19:21, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think this is going to be a widely-played sport anytime soon. RidG (talk) 20:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Wyss 03:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This seems to be a mildly widespread folk version of basketball. Perhaps a merge is more appropriate? Gazpacho 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not evident from the article. The google link does show some minor evidence for a folk game of that name (someone growing up playing "crateball"). But this article is about a game invented in 2001 of no apparent note. Michael Ward 16:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hilmar Klaus

Looks like just a website adverticement. In any case it is not an encyclopedic article... Thue | talk 20:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia articles are not #11: Mere collections of external links. — Ливай | ☺ 02:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, both as spam and as a recreation of a previously deleted article. It was speedied, after my nomination, at about 1am (UTC) yesterday morning. Rje 02:46, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Prior speedy deletions may not be used as justification for the argument to "speedy delete as previously deleted content". I can find no evidence that this was previously deleted except through speedy deletions. This should have been a regular VfD. Rossami (talk)

[edit] David volk

Not notable. Thue | talk 19:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Bingley

Clear Vanity page MPS 20:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity. I almost feel bad for the kid. I mean, "known among his peers as a person who has overcome the massive descrimination against 'nerds'"? Good lord. -RidG (talk) 20:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Uber-vanity. No need to wait Egil 21:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, vandalism. Dbenbenn 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article and associated images, speedily if possible but I'm not entirely sure it fits the criteria. — Ливай | ☺ 23:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity is still not a speedy criterion but is clearly in the list for deletion.Dr Zen 01:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily deleted, not as vanity, but because it has less context than the example given for CSD#4. Except for two images and an external link, the entire contents of the article was

  Chris S. Bingley (July, 1988 - ) is the inspirational leader of a group of students in Colfax, California. Bingley is known among his peers as a person who has overcome the massive descrimination against "nerds" and is looked on as a hero by all who know him.

  He is sometimes known as "King Bing."

  Bingley currently has no biography or autobiography.

  End of copied text. SWAdair | Talk 05:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stig Olai Kapskarmo

Does not qualify for notability. Being elected as #17 for hos party in the local municipality council, and having been member of a school board or two is not reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. (If it were, then >10.000 people from Norway alone would qualify). -- Egil 20:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Wyss 03:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article ended up on vfd a while ago (there's a copy here) and the consensus was to keep at that point. I don't think anything has changed since then. --DMG413 02:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This is madness. There was no consensus at all. Does the Wikipedia community understand what a consenus means? Most people said delete. Also: DO people know what they are letting themselves into here? There is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia can maintain biographies of all council members of reasonably size towns. We are probably talking millions of people on an international scale. Heck, most members of parliament are pretty un-notable. The only reason this article is here is that the guy wrote an auto-biography (an anon, the IP is to an ISP in his municipality). Nobody else in their right mind would write this biography. Egil 02:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a city councillor in a major town. - SimonP 05:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone is having fun with Wikipedia. Mahlum 21:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NeoExtreme

Not notable. --fvw* 22:25, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Why is this up for deletion? Nothing is wrong.

• Unsigned comment left by User:66.176.9.197 — Ливай | ☺ 22:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Ливай | ☺ 22:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys what is the problem? Why are sites like eBay and Amazon listed?? THEY are websites.

• Yes, but those are famous websites whose influence on society has been significant. For example, those are websites that are frequently mentioned in the national and international media. However we can't just go around listing every non-notable message board, fan page and blog out there, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. For every article we must ask ourselves "Is this a generally well-known topic in its field?" If the field is the Internet as in this case, then for the vast majority of individual websites the answer is no. — Ливай | ☺ 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why cant we just let this go. If you go to the site you will see it is very active and full of information, very useful. I think it should stay.

• If there's anything people agree on about Wikipedia policy, it's that it should be applied consistently. We delete articles on websites as non-notable as this on a daily basis, and the consensus has come to be that a website should show some signs of being especially prominent in the Internet community before it is deserving of an encyclopedia article. There are millions of "active" and "useful" webpages out there, and we've decided it's best to leave it up to other projects on the web to document them all. — Ливай | ☺ 23:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable web site. Its activity, utility, and information content may make it a great site and one to make a link to from your personal site, but I see nothing about it that belongs in an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 01:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable DCEdwards1966 01:40, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a web-guide. Rje 02:32, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, expressly violates the rules on not pushing a website on a wikipage. Stirling Newberry 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Hoary 05:57, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. A website is not inherently notable or encyclopedic. Wyss 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pdee

Obvious haox. --fvw* 22:38, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Yes, obvious hoax. Everyone knows that "Operation ToastWomble" was the government's secret plan to take down the breakfast cereal industry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. GRider\^talk 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism, prank. Wyss 03:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Deyanov

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 23:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Yet another blatant vanity. I'd really like to see those who insist this kind of stuff has to be deleted by VfD to do it themselves, but as not to hurt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, delete. --Wikimol 07:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? There are plenty of people willing to vote on VfD, if you think this is a waste of your time you're welcome to spend it elsewhere. --fvw* 16:55, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
• Delete, v. Wyss 03:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Wikimol, this should definitely be speediable, hopefully will be after the vote.Michael Ward 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joacim Ryd

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 23:14, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Delete. - probably speedy after the vote. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 23:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I am not sure it qualifies for speedy. -RidG (talk) 02:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Verging on speedy. --LeeHunter 04:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant vanity. Unfotunately output of the vote isn't sure (As I understand it, some do consider decisions like this "highly subjective"). --Wikimol 07:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pure vanity Egil 20:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a speedy, just egregious pimple puff, v. Wyss 03:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BlackMask

Vanity: web vandals in business for a year. --LeeHunter 03:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-aggrandizing. RickK 22:08, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the indictments. Wyss 03:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep this page, they have been responsible for number of political hacks.