Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 January 9 1.1 Sevens from hell 1.2 Teacher in role 1.3 Gaffer ball 2 Fair use rationale for Image:Burlington logo.gif 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Burlington logo.svg 4 This isn't a merge — There is nothing here that isn't already at Inch. Neither is this a redirect or a cleanup — the text isn't even about square inches 4.1 The Janitor 4.2 English Nationalist Party 4.3 Latenight Ebonics with Karinko & Thomas 4.4 Cold War MOD 4.5 Vishlaobuttie 4.6 Denis Peterson 4.7 Pornoburn 4.8 Bear ninja cowboy 4.9 MindSay 4.10 H. Vinke von Overbergen 4.11 Sal Barone 4.12 Holden Cera 4.13 Helzerman's Communications Wiki 4.14 San Andreas World 4.15 Economics & thermodynamics 4.16 John Conner & Resistance for Christ 5 Votes intended for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2 5.1 Hans Van Der Hoek 5.2 Wave model 5.3 Open SOurce on Windows 5.4 Jean du Villepaine 5.5 Rhode's Law 5.6 Thoros (god) 5.7 List of Active Vfd Voters 5.8 Talk:Hate group/ex-premies, Hate group/ex-premies 6 My edit 7 =Pop= 8 Trance (FF9) 9 Just a slight correction 10 Length 11 should this article split up? 12 Edits 13 Kingdom Hearts II 14 Contradiction... 15 Propose Merge with Common Elements of Final Fantasy 15.1 Edward wild 15.2 Digiweb 15.3 Dan Spalding 15.4 Tana Munbkowsky 15.5 Talk:Hate group/Ex-PremiesPart2 15.6 Hamsexy 15.7 Star Syndicate 15.8 Definitions of Palestinian occupation 15.9 Choke (movie) 15.10 scoll 15.11 Wikipedia:Fart Burning

[edit] January 9

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:Lambayeque coat of arms.jpg

[edit] Sevens from hell

I can't find any evidence this is a common card game, at least not under the name Sevens from hell. --fvw* 00:30, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Zero Google hits. Much too excessive for an encyclopedia article. Maybe move it to another WikiMedia partner? RickK 00:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks, perhaps? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity card game. Wyss 01:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not transwiki; I don't see a need for the rules of an unknown card game to be stored anywhere. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• In defense of the entry (by the person who originally wrote it), the entire reason that Wikipedia was chosen as a place to make this information public was because there are no Google hits (isn't the point of an encyclopedia to be a central authority?). The game has a following in Florida, and I've had people ask for a complete set of rules. I'll repost it on my personal web page, regardless of the vote here. 11 Jan 2005

WP is a general reference, not an exhaustively inclusive database (or authority on card games). Re Google, you got the order wrong (that's ok- lots of people misunderstand WP)... it's Google hits first (and other cultural noise), WP article later :) Wyss 06:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original creation. Tried Google...zero hits. Tried for a speedy...wound up here. Oh, well. At least the creator was gracious enough to comment in a rational manner. To that creator: Establish a username here. Quickly. This may be an original article, but it's a damned good-looking and well-formatted one. - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too on that :) Wyss 23:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's a good article and your writing is welcome, but help us establish the notability if you want to have this article stay. Pedant

• If, it can be established that it is indeed has a significant "following", then I would vote to keep. Just because it isn't on Google doesn't mean it isn't notable. But there does need to be some way to verify this. Paul August ☎ 04:05, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 20:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher in role

See Talk:Teacher in role

[edit] Gaffer ball

Not really encyclopedic. Sort of a dictionary definition, but not even really notable as that -- sort of like having an entry for "crumpled piece of paper" or something. I'm actually a stagehand and have never heard of a "gaffer ball" -- only maybe "that ball of used gaff tape" or something. kmccoy (talk) 00:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef. Rje 01:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've also never heard of it during my theatre work. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a real term for somebody someplace of course, but dicdefs get deleted anyway. Starblind 01:47, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as jargon dicdef, unverified. Wyss 01:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above RoySmith 02:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I get more Gaffers from Ball State University on Google than the number of definitions as mentioned in the article (zero). --Deathphoenix 17:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedia entry. I have a ball of used gaff tape in my booth, and all gaff tape that I pull up goes on the ball, just to see how big a ball I can make over a year or 3. This isn't a real thing, more of just something to do with used tape when your bored. I vote for delete. User:Zac850 from VfD:

Article fails to establish notability. Referenced web page yields a 403 error, making verification difficult. Company ceased to exist two and a half years ago. Uncle G 03:45, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Keep and fix. Realnames was a real company that tried to fix a real problem with trying to find information on the internet. It wasn't the biggest dot-com failure, but also wasn't the smallest. For a small bit of the background on the company, see [1]. Verifiability is just a quick Google search away. gK ¿? 06:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If you think that you can change the article so that it establishes notability, then go for it. It doesn't as it stands, however. And I note that your "quick Google search" turned up exactly the same single article about RealNames ceasing to exist two and a half years ago as my quick Google search did. Is the criterion for notability here the fact that the company ceased to exist? There have been an awful lot of companies that fulfil that criterion. Come on! Why was the company notable when it did exist? What did it do that makes it more notable than, say, InterGOV (which we decided wasn't notable)? Uncle G 17:49, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Keep, real company. Ashibaka tlk 07:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• There have been lots of real companies in the history of this planet. They aren't all notable, by a long chalk. Can you expand RealNames so that it demonstrates why from amongst all of them this particular real company is worthy of mention, even though it no longer exists, in an encyclopaedia? It doesn't as it stands. Uncle G 17:49, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Keep. I remember these people - this was supposedly a big big thing during the dotcom era. --JuntungWu 10:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It was a good idea, that nearly came off. -Thryduulf 13:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even I remember this dotcom. Bryan 18:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite notable. See [2] Gazpacho 23:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, historical notable. Megan1967 00:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a notable, very high profile dot com failure based on a superficial understanding of the Internet. Wyss 01:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons recently given. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand... why did they fail? What famous RealNames were registered, etc... Pedant

end moved discussion from VfD:

no info beyond obvious from title, not yet a speedy criteria Michael Ward 04:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like tautological, speedy material to me. What value do you see in it? -- Hadal 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It has no value. This criteria is currently listed in the speedy expansion vote. Surpringly (to me) it's not clear that this will gain consensus as a speedy criterion. Perhaps you would like to vote for it? Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal II (Amount of content II) Michael Ward 08:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Would that User:139.168.222.19 had not tried to be helpful! The original page was a clear speedy delete candidate. The rewritten page doesn't say which Burlington, of course. In any case: Any information about a Burlington city council will be specific to a single Burlington, and thus almost certainly belongs in one of the numerous individual Burlington articles. Delete. Uncle G 05:48, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• After Earl Andrew's changes: Weak keep, with reservations about how quickly the material will date, and strong move. "Burlington City Council" is the name of the council of any city named "Burlington". Uncle G 03:05, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• In light of User:Earl Andrew's revisions, I vote to keep (though it might be adviseable to change the page name to "City Council of Burlington, Ontario", to prevent confusion with Burlington, Vermont). CJCurrie 21:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as I have expanded the article to include what should be on it. Earl Andrew 21:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, local city councils are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 01:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Burlington, VT politics are pretty interesting, this ought to have potential. And I'm saying this from the opposite side of the US. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Except that this isn't about the Burlington, Vermont city council but about the Burlington, Ontario city council. My move point is made, I think. Uncle G 03:05, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete. First, the title is ambiguous. By itself, that would be a move--but the article on Burlington, Ontario is pretty tiny. There's easily quite a bit of room for the short list of city councillors there. If the city's article grows to be cumbersome, or if something noteworthy happens with its council, then it might be worthwhile to create a Burlington, Ontario city council page. --TenOfAllTrades 03:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems a sensible approach. CJCurrie 22:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 04:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Burlington City Council (Ontario) (so the main part of the title shares standard form with other Canadian city council articles). Samaritan 06:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Burlington, Ontario and delete - Skysmith 10:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. As above. Carrp 16:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep but needs more information about the council itself Xtra 12:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but a move is a good idea. - SimonP 15:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (It doesn't need to be moved because there is no current entry for the Burlington, Vermont city council—though it will require a disambiguation if it's kept in its current space), as mentioned above. Burlington City Council isn't as notable as, say, Toronto City Council or Hamilton City Council but it exists and is notable enough. The city of Burlington, Ontario is also notable enough (I am speaking as someone who worked in Burlington for a time). --Deathphoenix 17:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Burlington, Ontario is a short article and there is nothing in this that requires it be a separate article. Merge and Delete. I might add that {{canleg}} is a really ugly template and doesn't seem useful enough to justify its existence. older≠wiser 18:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Move to distinguish from any Burlington (Vermont) City Council. Neutrality^talk 04:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. zoney ♣ talk 14:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Local city councils are not inherently encyclopedic. Gamaliel 13:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Spinboy 05:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I would vote against creating an article for every individual councillor in Burlington, unless one or more somehow became notable outside the city, but I see little harm in an article that just lists them, especially since some other Canadian cities of similar size already have these types of articles, and more are redlinked on the {{canleg}} template. I wouldn't know where to draw the distinction between cities that are sufficiently notable to have a straight unwikied list of their incumbent city council and cities that aren't. Move, but keep. Bearcat 02:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Burlington logo.gif

Image:Burlington logo.gif 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) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Burlington logo.svg

The image Image:Burlington logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) from VfD: LAAAAAAAAAAAAALALALALALALLALALALALLALLALLALLALLAAAAAAAAAAAaaa

[edit] This isn't a merge — There is nothing here that isn't already at Inch. Neither is this a redirect or a cleanup — the text isn't even about square inches

. Uncle G 04:30, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Delete Coolhoot 09:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like an editing experiment. Delete. Edeans 09:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it looks like its a copy and paste from elsewhere. Thryduulf 12:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • mild keep now its been rewritten. Thryduulf 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:42, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Inch. Megan1967 00:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After viewing the new rewritten article, I've decided to change my vote to weak Keep. Megan1967 03:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all the above, but please don't redirect. Wyss 01:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JoaoRicardo 05:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No redirect. Keep. After the rewrite it's worth keeping. Carrp 16:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• What links here shows a fairly robust set of links in to this page. The contents of this page are correct but not relevant to the title "square inch". While this probably could be consolidated with inch, it would be inconsistent with our other entries on units of area (see square metre and square foot). I've rewritten it to be consistent with those examples. Weak keep. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is some information on conversion in this article and it might be useful. 129.177.61.124 12:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been rewritten. Uncle G 13:31, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. --Deathphoenix 18:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

Probable nonsense. If not then non-encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 03:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've added some info which at least gives the context. I don't know whether the article is worth keeping though. --LeeHunter 05:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Darren Shan. Ashibaka tlk 07:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, marginal notability, if not merge into Darren Shan and add redirect. Megan1967 00:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Darren Shan. --Deathphoenix 18:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge! isn't like a delete! Also cleanup! Writiing articles too enthusiastically makes them look less noticeable! anyway! if this article were longer, I might vote to keep! Still, needs, cleanup! Pedant

end moved discussion

[edit] The Janitor

sub-trivial and non-notable DCEdwards1966 04:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. Edeans 09:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. -Thryduulf 13:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Usually I'd say merge. The entry on the television show itself has a list of characters, but they don't have descriptions, just character and actor credits, so there's no where for this page to go. I suppose Delete. LockeShocke 16:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Strange Days at Blake Holsey High contains about as much information on The Janitor as this article. This article may have been written to get rid of the red link in its parent article. Maybe Strange Days at Blake Holsey High needs some cleanup to get rid of the red links (and insert links if notable articles on the characters are created). --Deathphoenix 18:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 13:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Nationalist Party

Political party formed on January 1, 2005. DCEdwards1966 04:06, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until it has some candidates. Currently it doesn't seem to have members. DJ Clayworth 05:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons above. -- Hoary 05:22, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
• Marginal keep. Just because something is a week old doesn't mean it isn't justified a listing. But this needs to be expanded with perhaps a link to media coverage of its creation, a webpage, or something to suggest that this is real and not a hoax. 23skidoo 06:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there is no media coverage of its creation. Google for the party name plus creator's name turns up nothing. Party name only turns up just generic descriptive uses. DJ Clayworth 06:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Smells of self-publicity; the "party" clearly hasn't done anything at all yet, never mind anything notable. sjorford 11:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the party comes to anything, then the article can be recreated. At present its very POV. As a UK voter, I cannot see any party describing themselves as "proto-fascist" if they have any dreams of any representation anywhere. -Thryduulf 13:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability of parties requires performance at the polls, or at least the belief that they will among a sufficient number of the electorate. New parties require either media attention or membership of existing notable politicians to deserve an article before they contest an election. Average Earthman 13:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mrwojo 17:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable front organization for one person Gazpacho 22:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vapourparty. --Deathphoenix 18:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 22:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Parties in England and describe the other parties as well. antifinnugor 21:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no such party. Mk270 19:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latenight Ebonics with Karinko & Thomas

Non-notable; 1 Google hit DCEdwards1966 04:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The included website says the production company behind it is run by a 13 year old boy. The only other contribution from this user (to quote it: '"The Howie, Thomas, Alyssa, & Chris Comedy Hour" is a future show that I personally believe will happen! And this Wiki page is dedicated to its future!!!') has already been deleted. -- Hadal 04:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Entirely non-notable. --LeeHunter 05:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity/advertising. -Thryduulf 13:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While I do wish them the best of luck, this is the very definition of non-notable. Starblind 13:33, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity pimple puff. Wyss 01:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ad. --Deathphoenix 18:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete

[edit] Cold War MOD

vanity DCEdwards1966 04:32, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Gazpacho 23:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity game. Wyss 01:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some MODs are notable. This is not (and is likely vanity, to boot). --Deathphoenix 18:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vishlaobuttie

Probable hoax. No Google hits. DCEdwards1966 04:42, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Disgusting hoax not even worthy of BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 05:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has merit and is applicable. Mrcommunism 07:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that every single edit by this user was vandalism. Check his history please. [3] Antandrus 08:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Mrcommunism seems rather self-confident for a new user. Is he a sockpuppet? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. Seems like wanton vandalism to me. Norg 07:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. --Kelly Martin 07:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. Antandrus 08:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Rant, patent nonsense or both? Delete. Edeans 09:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly written hoax (seems as if its been translated from German). -Thryduulf 13:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Megan1967 00:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as silly vandalism. Wyss 01:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm very tempted to speedy delete as vandalism.-gadfium 05:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I'm tempted too. I wouldn't want a page like this about me sitting in Wikipedia while it awaits a VfD. --Deathphoenix 18:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but not speedy according the current rules. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, or completely non-encyclopedic content at best. Delete, possible speedy deletion candidate. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Peterson

non-notable; possible vanity DCEdwards1966 04:48, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity. A google search for "Denis Peterson" artist gives no relevent results. -Thryduulf 13:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as either vanity ad or a prank. Wyss 01:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, even if the image looks nice. --Deathphoenix 18:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pornoburn

Neologism and possible joke. Two hits on Google (neither are relevant). --LeeHunter 04:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. -- Hadal 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Cookiecaper 05:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JoaoRicardo 06:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, juvenilia. --Zarquon 06:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 06:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Thryduulf 13:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --sp00n17 15:30, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original classification. Wyss 01:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Wyss said. Johntex 04:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WikiDictionary at best, prank at worst. I'm leaning towards the latter. --Deathphoenix 18:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Completely useless content, appears to be a hoax. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bear ninja cowboy

non-notable DCEdwards1966 04:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not much else to say. - Greaser 05:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I could probably say a lot more about it, but since it is probably all against various guidelines, I won't. Delete. Edeans 09:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One persons idle thoughts about violence are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a blog. -Thryduulf 13:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as either a vanity game or vanity rant. Wyss 01:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I believe this is already mentioned as a variant in the Rock Paper Scissors article. The Steve 08:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original research. --Deathphoenix 18:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MindSay

ad DCEdwards1966 05:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Advertising. Thryduulf 13:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Wyss 01:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• CLearly Not an ad, see xanga,blogger, etc. drdrew, 10, Jan 2005
  • Vote moved for clarity. The history records this vote actually being made by anon user:68.34.161.138. Based on contribution histories, they do appear to be the same person. Rossami (talk)
• Delete ad. --Deathphoenix 18:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H. Vinke von Overbergen

genealogical information DCEdwards1966 05:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Thryduulf 13:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as genealogy. Wyss 01:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --Deathphoenix 18:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sal Barone

An actor whose only role was as "DJ" in the Rosanne pilot. DCEdwards1966 05:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. IMDB page [4] confirms that he isn't notable. --Idont Havaname 05:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (vanity?). Thryduulf 13:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, possible vanity ad. Wyss 01:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• There's a Sal Barone who's a fairly well-known gay comic. If this is the same guy, I reckon that he makes an interesting story and we should keep him. Don't know how you would find out though. It seems he once appeared with the guy who plays George in Seinfeld in a play off-Broadway. Shattered dreams, eh?Dr Zen 01:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 20:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Cera

This model does not exist at all—one editor has already deleted one reference to it on the Holden page. I suspect the writer is a prankster. Stombs 05:33, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This Aussie auto site[5] has many Holden models, but no Cera. Only google hit for "Holden Cera" is the VfD page--without quotes there are hits, but they all look unrelated. Niteowlneils 22:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as probable prank. Wyss 01:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely prank. --Deathphoenix 18:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helzerman's Communications Wiki

A wiki formed in January 2005. Newcomer probably didn't realise our policy with regard to these things. DJ Clayworth 05:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad. Wyss 01:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web guide. Average Earthman 11:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. I can see how one can interpret "Wikipedia" to be an encyclopedia on Wikis. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Andreas World

Needless duplication of what is already at Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas. Uncle G 06:12, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Transwiki for Wikibooks's San Andreas walkthrough and delete. (Or just delete.) Mrwojo 17:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pseudo fork. Wyss 01:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JoaoRicardo 06:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly redirect to Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas. There seem to be a lot of these springing up: I make it 9 which have been redirected back to the main article (5 of them by me), 3 on copyvios (including a duplicate), and 3 more on VfD (Sprunk, TransFender and Wu Zi Mu). -- sjorford 09:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate fork. --Deathphoenix 18:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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

from VfD:

Apparent vanity. Uncle G 06:28, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• "Article" is nothing more than a link to a memorial page for an Ohio State math prof who died in 1991. Delete unless some indication of notability shows up. Edeans 19:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Zassenhaus is somewhat notable (the Zassenhaus lemma, as mentioned below). What's there is pretty worthless so not much would be lost if it was deleted, but he arguably deserves a page. -- Walt Pohl 01:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "Vanity"? The guy has been dead for 13 years... And he actually seems to have been quite a notable mathematician (he is linked to from the article Zassenhaus lemma). The problem is that there is no article at the moment, just a link. / up+land 20:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As no article seems to be appearing, it is an obvious delete at this point. It is easy for somebody mathematically inclined to write an article at some later time. The current "article" is a hit-and-run posting from IP 128.8.19.26, which has contributed nothing else. The person probably doesn't read this. / up+land 08:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. / up+land 10:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's just a link, this is no way to start an article. Wyss 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed that the subject may be notable, but I'd rather see a stub than a link.
• Write an article and we won't delete it, but wikipedia is not a link repository. Delete unless an actual article is written. Pedant
• Keep now (was a speedy, shouldn't have been here); Z is certainly notable and I have made this into a basic stub. Charles Matthews 10:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be notable, and this page is a valid stub. Martg76 22:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current stub form. Stombs 01:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Economics & thermodynamics

original research. and in my (professional) opinion, nonsense. Michael Ward 06:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, crank essay. --Zarquon 11:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research at best. Josh Cherry 18:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rant? Joke? Equally useless. Edeans 19:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 23:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as the definition of cranky deep thoughts, codswallop. Wyss 01:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, in my academic opinion on thermodynamics. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, possible BJAODN candidate. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gets my vote for BJAODN—delete. Stombs 01:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

Simpson's sub-trivia DCEdwards1966 06:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Merge this article. Just like Homer's annoyed grunt, more phrases from the Simpsons are finding its way into colloquial speech, and this article is well-written and factual enough to deserve a place at Wikipedia, in the section of Simpsons made-up words. Fourlittlediamonds
• Merge with Simpsons article.
• Delete DJ Clayworth 06:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Memes section of The Simpsons entry. Norg 07:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even notable enough to merge. Raven42 10:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial definition with etymology. Mrwojo 17:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, borderline notability could do with expansion, if not merge with The Simpsons as a sub-heading. Megan1967 00:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it was a one-shot joke in a single episode. That it is "used by some" (who?) as a slang term doesn't save it. Cdc 04:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible merge, but this doesn't need its own article. Carrp 16:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the memes section of the main Simpsons article, since it adds more strength to the argument about how The Simpsons has affected and influenced popular culture and even everyday speech (though I personally have yet to encounter the phrase "panaphonics"). 23skidoo 01:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge It's used as a slang online at message forums and many people online do make jokes about cheap electronics, saying they are made by Panaphonics... etc. Search for Panaphonics in Google and you will see the way it is used.
• Merge, after being convinced that it is part of popular culture through a Google search. Stombs 10:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons. The Memes section of The Simpsons is more appropriate for popular memes, which the genuine Panaphonics, Magnetbox, and Sorny are not. And then there's Ednakrabbappoly! --Deathphoenix 18:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion from VfD:

An imaginary soap opera from Sex and the City. DCEdwards1966 06:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC).

• Delete. I'm not against "show within shows" being given articles (see Radioactive Man which I voted to keep), but there's too little here to justify an article, and what's here is incomplete. It certainly shouldn't be linked to a list of real soap operas (I'll go remove that right now). 23skidoo 16:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if appropriate, but this is nn. Wyss 01:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 06:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability, no existence separate from the show (in contrast, a quick Google shows that Radioactive Man features in the title of computer games and as a plush doll - albeit from when Homer Simpson played him - so has more recognisability). Average Earthman 11:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Carrp 13:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Of course Keep It obviously needs expanding, but compiling known information on fictional things is a fine use of Wikipedia (eg Genovia) Dtcdthingy 13:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the Radioactive Man and Terrance and Phillip bases, but take out the two actors' names at the bottom and stub it. Stombs 01:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

This article has now been merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules and Mimi (2nd nomination). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

from VfD:

All country calling codes are already listed at List of country calling codes. DCEdwards1966 06:47, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge :)) Dbenbenn 07:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 18:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of country calling codes. Megan1967 00:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gazpacho 01:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Possible redirect to Tanzania? Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. already covered in List of country calling codes. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect either to List of country calling codes or Communications in Tanzania. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] John Conner & Resistance for Christ

Conner is founder of Resistance for Christ which was "Regarded as a hoax by many in the begining". (I agree it's likely a hoax). But, "has become a large movement within the Christian community in the USA." This group has discovered information "so disturbing and polarizing, that they often never pierce (sic) the main stream news mediums (sic) due to editiorial and political influences". However, that would not explain the zero google hits if this were a real group. Anyone heard of this? Only one anon editor. Update, see also the related Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto Michael Ward 07:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete while I find amount of Google hits to be a somewhat dubious reference for deletion, this article has no supporting documents, I've never heard of it, regardless of my previous comment I cannot find anything about them on Google and the user is anonymous, the IP only having posted an article relative to this one. Norg 07:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I have come from the future to Terminate this article. Starblind 14:44, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Bad joke (the article, I mean). Delete. Edeans 17:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, probable hoax. Megan1967 00:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yep, that's the name of a character in Terminator, article provides no means of verification or evidence of notability, could be a hoax. Wyss 01:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I made this mistake too, initially, until I checked. The character is John Connor (and he's not in The Terminator, only Terminator 2 et seq.). Uncle G 01:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
    • He's referred to quite a bit in the first Terminator movie as well, but the character doesn't appear onscreen. Wyss 02:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Sarah becomes pregnant with John during the movie. Kyle falls in love with Sarah, and they do it. Skynet sent the Terminator back in time to kill Sarah, but by doing that Kyle was sent back by the humans and made Sarah pregnant. It caused what it wanted to stop. Luigi30 03:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ahem! Ahem! Uncle G 13:39, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Maybe so, but a spoken reference onscreen can be transcribed either way. "Conner" gets Google hits too, in reference to T2/T3. [6]-Willmcw 22:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "Connor" was the mother's name given in the credits, though, for those who paid attention. (-: Uncle G 20:35, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. DJ Clayworth 05:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, and poorly written one at that. -Willmcw 21:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the creator of the article has been blanking the VfD notices, and this discussion. -Willmcw 05:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely hoax and vanity. Blanking VfD is a plus to my vote. --Deathphoenix 18:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THE LORD? http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=gF4IXDmAOg&isbn=0967346630&itm=1 THIS IS A REAL TITLE REGISTERED WITH BN.COM [BOWKER.COM] AND BOOKS IN PRINT. (68.7.217.249 according to history Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC))
  • That link shows a future publication date, March 2005, by a publisher with 18 google hits. Michael Ward 06:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not discussing the book. That was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto, whose conclusion was Delete. We are discussing "John Conner", the self-styled pseudonym of the author of a non-existent book, and "Resistance for Christ", a non-existent religious group. Delete. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
• Conner, the author of the manifesto claims he is "an Agent of the Lord" sent to fight Satanism perticularly in pop culture. His publicity stunts have included sarcastic ambush style interviews with various individuals from the Mormon Church and the FreeMasons to protests on Hollywood Boulevard. Despite Conners sometimes bizare antics, the manifesto contains historically accurate information and an in depth analysis into the ideologies of the globalists agenda creating the New World Order. Conner has penetrated the Alan Colms Show on Foxnews Radio, the Michael Savage Show, the Paul MacGuire Show and more. (68.7.217.249 according to history Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC))
• Delete'. Agitprop/vanity. Quatloo 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes intended for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2

• Delete per nom. with extreme prejudice.Tombride 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a hoax, the website is www.the resistancemanifesto.com. The book is real, it's called The Resistance Manifesto it's selling for $14.95. DO NOT DELETE.

Please DO NOT DELETE. This is a factual website revealing the truth about 911, just like Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Ed Asner, many government officials, etc. who are speaking out about the Bush/Blair/Sharon involvement in 911. This is historical and exposes that evil elite sponsor evil politicians to perform evil deeds to keep the masses in confusion while the evil elites and their collaborators steal the masses lives and wealth through wars they orchestrated while funding both sides in the conflict.

Do Not Delete. While I will agree that John Conner has a tendancy of being more than a little outspoken. At times his antics can make a person wonder if he is truely dedicated in what he believes in...or if he is just having fun while exploiting popular conspiracy theories for sake of noteriety, or if he is just a straight up looney tune. For all I know...it could be that he is any of the above. Now, something I do know is that if you take a look through his book, The Resistance Manifesto....you will find fact after verifiable fact. I challenge anyone who believes his information should be deleted to read his book, go through it subject by subject....and prove it to be a hoax. Better yet...ask him for the resorces in which he gathered his info...and verify his research. I'm sorry to have to be the one to say this....but...his book is factual. Don't take my word for it....Look into it for yourself. If you choose not to...Who are you to delete anything? Just because you have chosen not to be informed on the truth...does not mean you can be ignorant in your proclimations about him. Universal Truth is not measured by mass appeal. He has spent countless nights researching his data. Can you say the same?

Do Not Delete. John Conner fights for the rights of every man. He's progressively exposing the secrects of the illuminaries. He has his own character, but once you know him you'll propably end up seeing him as a good guy trying to help us all and especially the poor fellas. Research first, condemn after.

• Keep it's a legitamit article (re www.theresistancemanifesto.com) and the irresponsible people who voted to delete should, in future, bother to research subjects before passing judgement. This is all too often with these people.

• Do Not Remove, I own the book The Resistance Manifesto and refer to it often. I have heard John Connor call in on multiple am radio talk shows.

DO NOT DELETE. We need to give populations good informations.As mass media dosen't tell the truth, dosen't mean we don't want the truth! Maria

DO NOT REMOVE! JOHN CONNER IS GREAT HE CALLS SEAN HANNITY AND ALAN COLMES FREQUENTLY TO CULTURE JAM THEM! HE MAY HIDE HIS REAL NAME BUT HIS ACTIVISM IS LEGITIMATE HE FIGHTS FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ANTI BUSH what more can you ask for?

KEEP John Conner and The Resistance Manifesto are cited in several Wikipedia Articles and is a legit topic DO NOT DELETE Here is one example from WIKIPEDIA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Boots_Are_Made_for_Walkin%27_%28Jessica_Simpson_single%29 And the first 10 or so votes for deletion are invalad.

"Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
  2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave the following out of Wikipedia:

  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." I apologise for the cut and paste oddessy, but all the information was taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT and unfortunately, it seems like the article in question has no place in wikipedia.

KEEP ARTICLE DONT DELETE I take it someone at Wikipedia is a homosexual and is offended by parts of this article. This article is written objectively is made to approach a neutral point of view. The NYPOST, SmartMoney Mag, Rollingstone, and all the other publications which are cited in this article must be less important than wikipedia, since wikipedia seems John Conner isn't a newsworthy person.

[edit] Hans Van Der Hoek

Like Michael Ward (see User talk:Sud-Pol#Hans Van Der Hoek), I could not corroborate the existence of "Hans Van Der Hoek" the composer. There is a corporate CEO by the name, but he doesn't seem to be the same person. Also note that the author (Sud-Pol — contributions) is a known vandal who has spent his/her time trying to insert sourceless images of very young girls in diapers into various articles. I therefore question the veracity of this article. -- Hadal 07:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• delete unless a reasonable source is provided by end of vfd. author has edited since the request for source, yet has ignored it. in view of author's other questionable contributions and vandalism, this article requires at least some verification that such a person existed. while i don't think the google test is necessarily appropriate for notability for a South African musician of some years back, it is a reasonable rebuttable test for existence of a well-known person in a country such as South Africa that has a reasonable internet presence. Michael Ward 18:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax. Megan1967 00:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax, also zero Google hits. Wyss 00:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hans Van Der Who? Probably a hoax. --Deathphoenix 19:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for exact same reasons Michael Ward gave. DreamGuy 14:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a source is provided. Dbenbenn 15:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons. — mark ✎ 01:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Carrp 13:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

I doubt there's anything encyclopedic to be said about the game of "dress-up".

• Delete Dbenbenn 07:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This could discuss the game's role in social development, organised use in education, different activites at different ages, and many more things. Kappa 07:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Kappa Coolhoot 09:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a bit stubby now, sure, but as children's games/activities go it's undoubtedly very long-lived and widespresd. Starblind 13:25, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, same reasons. Bryan 18:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Delete if cleanup doesn't help it. Either way, re-name/move to dress-up. Niteowlneils 22:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cultural notability but article needs a dressing up :). Megan1967 00:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and pass the floppy hat, please. Wyss 00:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. As is, it's kind of a dopey article, but has the potential to be expanded into something interesting and notable. RoySmith 02:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 04:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, optionally merge with role-playing. Gazpacho 05:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Markaci 11:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article already has a cleanup notice. --Deathphoenix 19:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Dress-up and expand Pedant
• Delete or Replace with a set of links to articles such as Role-playing game or Cosplay. Makes dressing-up sound like a defined game with rules. Another product of Sud-Pol - see #Hans Van Der Hoek above and what Hadal has to say about him. -- RHaworth 13:58, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Open SOurce on Windows

Clumsily phrased essay. Not encyclopedic. Better versions of the potentially encyclopedic bits of it already appear at Open source , Mozilla, etc. -- Hoary 08:11, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Delete, agreed. Dbenbenn 08:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pseudo fork, original research and bad writing. Wyss 00:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 01:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay, original research. --Deathphoenix 19:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand it imho useful information antifinnugor 22:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhode's Law

This appears to be just some kind of joke that was spreading around the web at some time. See google. Coolhoot 09:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this poor attempt at humor. Josh Cherry 18:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Edeans 19:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that a vote? --MarkSweep 21:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is. Edeans 00:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This essentially says that people believe what they want to believe. Covered already under self-serving bias, self-deception, selective perception, etc. See list of cognitive biases. --MarkSweep 21:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Self-serving bias. Megan1967 00:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense joke. Wyss 00:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• what a load of nonsense. Delete Xtra 13:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Deathphoenix 19:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Joke, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJODN. Thryduulf 18:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hate group/ex-premies, Hate group/ex-premies

who deleted this page without waiting the customary 5 days? --Zappaz 03:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Talk page for an article which does not exist. Very POV and potentially libelous. RickK 10:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - contains information pertaining the association made on the hate group article about the ex-premie group being labeled as a hate group. This is part of the talk page and should be kept on record as it was intergral part of the dicussion that ensued in Talk:hate group.--Zappaz 03:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • vote removed as the editor split their vote for the newly added article page below. --fvw* 03:45, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Orphaned talk page. Wikipedia is not an archive for expremie.org chatroom. jni 15:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. especially because part of the entries are faked. All of those are taken out of context. I don't know how much of this would cross the line from civil law to penal law, 'cause i am not experienced with american law, hope the disclaimer keeps Wikipedia clean from this. What about Talk:Hate group/Ex-PremiesPart2? This is the continuation of this article and deserves the same treatment. Thomas h 16:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just submitted that one to VfD also. jni 17:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible DELETEI don't care if these people aren't serious, just kidding, or whatever the hell their excuse is. Hosting death threats and such has the potential to get WP in very hot water, not to mention bad press, and must be deleted ASAP. Starblind 17:52, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yikes!! Concur. Edeans 20:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Surely this stuff is copyvio and should be blanked forthwith? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I read part of it. I'm still not sure what it is, but I'm sure it should be deleted RoySmith 00:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ASAP, not an article, poss. libel. Wyss 00:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speed deleted: patent nonsense, vandalism, lack of context. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I've added the corresponding article to this VfD, it was marked as a speedy but isn't. Delete for both though. --fvw* 19:40, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

• Delete as context-less, unverified and probably unverifiable, and very probably libellous. Also spell out for those who like playing silly games that Delete does not mean "move the same material to another page," which is more than likely how this article came to be in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE:. The original page was a subset of the talk page (Talk:Hate group/ex-premies) and was provided as substantiation (grounded or not) for the claims made against the ex-premies being a hate group. As far as I know, Talk pages and its subsets do not fall under the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy or Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. This subset of the talk page was deleted by an admin, without waiting for the customary 5 days, and re-posted again under Hate group/ex-premies. What needs to be done is
  • delete Hate group/ex-premies, for the obvious reasons stated above, and
  • Keep Talk:Hate group/ex-premies as it is a subset of a Talk page that should not be deleted. --Zappaz 22:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article or template was once part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. It has since been removed. If you think it should be added again, discuss it on the project talk page. Removal reason: Redirect

For the VfD from January 2005, please see here

[edit] My edit

I made a few edits. I was reading through the article and saw "Limit Break", "limit break", "Limit breaks", "Limits", etc and thought there should be a uniformed punctuation to the term. If anyone disagrees, just change it. I just thought if the article was to stay it should be smart and look as if someone proof read it. -- Cuahl 20:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =Pop=

Maybe we could add a pop culture tag here, though I'm not sure if it has any real meat to it.

But I think gamers tend to use (as was noted) limit break as an encompassing term.

That, and in Fallout 2, the character Cassidy, after taking a (critical) hit sometimes remarks "I wish I had a limit break."

TotalTommyTerror 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for pop culture references, there's a good one to cite in the webcomic Questionable Content at http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=707 As far as notability, I came to this page because I didn't know what a Limit Break was, so I think that at least being able to look that up here is a good idea. Critterkeeper 18:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trance (FF9)

In FF9, when the characters entered trance mode, they would gain a corresponding "new appearance" (even besides the flashing light effects). The ones I know of are:

Zidane: Changes to a more "wild" appearance (as with Kuja), fur replaces clothes. Vivi: Clothes become more like his fellow black mages'; his hat is straightened, and all his clothes are made more ornate with gold (or some metal) accentations. Steiner: Armor becomes somewhat more ornate, his face is covered by a metal mask. Freya: Her clothes are changed to more traditional dragoon-like armor. Quina: He/she becomes this bizzare black-and-white chef.

I vaguely remember Garnet's, which gave her long blonde hair (which could've just been the lighting from the trance effect).

Anyone out there have a complete/more detailed list?

[edit] Just a slight correction

I made an edit to the Kingdom Hearts section of Cloud's limit breaks. The attack Cloud uses in Kingdom Hearts 1 and Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories where he transforms and flies while slashing, is also called "Omnislash." This is verified in KH:CoM when he uses the same attack in the game and it is called "Omnislash" and in the Kingdom Hearts Ultimania Omega which lists the attack names. The names of the attacks of KH:CoM come from their corresponding attacks in KH.

Also, Cloud has the same attack in Kingdom Hearts 2, minus the use of the wing..and it more closely resembles his original Omnislash attack. This attack is also called "Omnislash" as verified in the Ultimania Omega of KH2.

Question: For the FFVI desparation attacks, it says "can only be used once." Does this refer to once per battle, or once ever? I think this would be a valuable point to clarify. --Nichenbach 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Probably 80% of this article is examples. Is that really necessary? Ace of Sevens 13:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mentioning the most memorable ones (Omnislash and uhh....) as examples seems fine to me. At the moment, this article irks my WP:NOT a gameguide sense. -- Bakabaka 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just cut out all the examples. If something's particularly notable, it can go back, but the previous version was ridiculous. Ace of Sevens 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For posterity, Ace of Sevens's edit is here. I think the list may be OK (like what was listed for FF6, "Character Name - Limit1, Limit2, Limit3") without all the descriptions. That would then allow searchers to find the page if they only hear other people talk about 'Renzokuken' they can find the article. Also, putting it in a set format of a list may discourage future bloat of the article. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] should this article split up?

I noticed that this is getting larger, so I thought it'd be best if few or several sections have their own independence. What do you think? 75.16.35.95 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, I think a list would be good, but the specific descriptions of each should be sections within the character's main article (I didn't check, but I assume most are already?). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I put in Final Fantasy Tactics and took out the City of Heroes reference--the skill referenced in COH is an extremely common one in MMORPGs and it didn't really relate to limit breaks or FF anyway. Durahan

[edit] Kingdom Hearts II

Um, the co-op attacks in KH2 are called "Limits." This seems to be an obvious Limit Break refernce and is more worthy of mentioning than "Drives."

[edit] Contradiction...

FFVII and FFVIII are the only ones to actually use the term Limit Break

And

In the Japanese version of FFVIII, these desperation moves were called Special Arts, shortened to Special in the Status Menu.

I'm changing the former, as it seems more likely a misconception than the latter being made up. If anyone has any proof otherwise, be my guest--Cyberdude93 13:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Merge with Common Elements of Final Fantasy

It was recently proposed that this article be merged with the main FF article. There is also some question about the notability of this article. While I think limit breaks (or similar mechanics) have played a significant enough role in the series to warrant mentioning, I don't think it warrants its own article. It seems to me that it would be better to condense this article into a single paragraph and merge it with the Common elements of Final Fantasy article.Nimrand 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The content of the article could definitely fit in if cleaned up like Cid, Gilgamesh, etc., were. Kariteh 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I. It would seem impossible for anyone to establish any kind of notability in this article, especially because it is only faintly referenced in the game, no developer needs to explain about the system (with the exception of XII), and none of the manuals/guides give an in-depth description good enough te be used as a reference.72.130.236.238 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Then in the future, when a Gameplay of Final Fantasy article is created, some of the info from the common themes page can be relocated. — Deckiller 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, this stubby article finds its home :) Good idea Judgesurreal777 05:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on Limit Breaks in the common elements article. Once people are satisfied that it contains the notable information, we should replace this article with a redirection to the common element article.Nimrand 12:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this page to redirect to the common elements article, where the notable content of this article has been merged. If you feel that there is valuable content about Limit Breaks that is missing from the Battle systems section of the common elements article, please add the content there.Nimrand 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Radioactive Man

[edit] Edward wild

Created by anon, probably vanity with nothing found on Google. violet/riga (t) 13:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unverified, possibly vanity. Starblind 15:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' nn. Dbiv 17:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' seems very much like vanity to me. Thryduulf 23:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, let's wait for a bit more peer review. Wyss 00:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably self created, let's wait until he's got a permanent position or a higher profile. I've had more papers published than Mr Wild, and in high impact journals to boot, and I'd vote delete if I found an article on myself in Wikipedia. Average Earthman 11:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 19:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TOS TrekMuse

[edit] Digiweb

Digiweb Is just some blatent advertisement for a web provider. I don't see how this could turn into anything more than a very detailed advertisement. --sp00n17 03:27, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. Xezbeth 17:32, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Thryduulf 23:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, almost spam. Wyss 00:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Commercial and not notable. Delete. Stombs 10:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. --Deathphoenix 19:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Spalding

Vanity, not notable. Google pulls up 330 results for "Dan Spalding Midnight Special Law Collective," and the majority aren't even related to him. User:Danspalding has also added himself to the "Notable alumni" section of Oberlin College (as well as someone else who appears to be nothing more than a college buddy, but that's beside the point). Beginning 16:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with user page and delete. --MarkSweep 17:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, page has been blanked, v. Wyss 00:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tana Munbkowsky

Apparently the girlfriend of a singer. Not notable for anything other than that. 10 Google hits, 3 for suggested alternative spelling "Tana Mundkowsky." Beginning 16:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Very not-notable, substub and POV. Starblind 18:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blank article. 23skidoo 22:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the VfD replaced the original text, its available in the history. Thryduulf

Just to affirm the validity of my vote, it was made based upon inspecting the archived version in the history, not upon encountering a blank page. 23skidoo 01:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Starblind's comments. Thryduulf 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wyss 00:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Chazzoz 21:41, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hate group/Ex-PremiesPart2

• who deleted this page without waiting the customary 5 days? --Zappaz 03:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned talk page with contents that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia. This is a continuation of Talk:Hate group/ex-premies, also in VfD above. jni 17:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest possible DELETEI don't care if these people aren't serious, just kidding, or whatever the hell their excuse is. Hosting death threats and such has the potential to get WP in very hot water, not to mention bad press, and must be deleted ASAP. Starblind 17:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE, Wikipedia is not a playfield for cultists and exers (which i am myself, due to my resume). That was and still is my strongest opinion. I couldn't stay away from this because allegations were made that concerned my former life, that are just blatant lies. This is not stuff for an encyclopedia anyway. I personally think that this is a threat for wikipedia because many related articles got influenced by this. Bertelsmann will have it easy to proof that wikipedia is nonserious if this goes on. Thomas h 18:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• "Bilge" is too kind a description here. Delete. Edeans 20:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, delete. RickK 21:25, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Subcontrainfrabilge. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I see this is already deleted, but I just have to ask -- what does "Subcontrainfrabilge" mean"? RoySmith 02:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, spedily if possible. Thryduulf 23:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete contains libellous nonsense about ex-premie Jim H. Andries 00:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fast as possible, not an article, possible libel. Wyss 00:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Speed deleted: patent nonsense, vandalism, lack of context. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - contains information pertaining the association made on the hate group article about the ex-premie group being labeled as a hate group. This is part of the talk page and should be kept on record as it was intergral part of the dicussion that ensued in Talk:hate group. --Zappaz 03:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want this back, you'll probaly gladly reveal your identity to take over responsibility for that. In court you will have opportunity enough to state your view 195.169.149.55

Is this an anonymous threat? LOL! --Zappaz 17:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as context-less, unverified and probably unverifiable, and very probably libellous. Also spell out for those who like playing silly games that Delete does not mean "move the same material to another page," which is more than likely how this article came to be in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE:. The original page was a subset of the talk page (Talk:Hate group) and was provided there as substantiation (grounded or not) for the claims made against the ex-premies being a hate group. As far as I know, Talk pages and its subsets do not fall under the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy or Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. This subset of the talk page was deleted by an admin, without waiting for the customary 5 days, and re-posted again. This page need to be Kept as it is a subset of a Talk page that should not be deleted according to WP policy. --Zappaz 22:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamsexy

Promotional neologism for website -- Infrogmation 20:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Advertising. Thryduulf 23:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 00:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless article Dangman4ever
• Delete, crap. Neutrality^talk 04:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Palestinian occupation

Not encyclopedic. The article doesn't actually discuss "Palestinian occupation", or definitions thereof. Searching on Google, the term "Palestinian occupation" seems to be rarely used, and when used, ususally refers to an hypothetical situation where Israel would come under Palestinian occupation, or to the situation in parts of Lebanon during the civil war. The article doesn't mention any of these, but instead discusses (very briefly) the term "occupied Palestinian territories", for which we already have a better article. -- uriber 20:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like an idea for an article that never went anywhere. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a potential fork. Wyss 00:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with Uriber. Make sure everything worthy here is merged into occupied Palestinian territories before deleting. BACbKA 10:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like an extremely POV attempt to make out that Israel is not actually "occupying" the West Bank. This is an extreme minority view and should be represented as such in the occupied Palestinian territories article. Dr Zen 01:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here worth merging with Occupied Palestinian territories. Megan1967 04:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - still evolving, no decent reason to delete. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 16:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Still evolving"? It was created on Sept. 28, and had a minor modification on Oct. 14. Nothing since then. Hardly "evolving". Jayjg | (Talk) 17:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic and nothing worth merging. Carrp 17:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Choke (movie)

Movie that may or may not be produced in the future, or unfounded Internet rumor. 634 hits for "Darren Aronofsky" choke doesn't seem notable as either. Niteowlneils 23:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thryduulf 00:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing on IMDB. That doesn't necessarily mean it absolutely 100% for sure will never be released, but we should wait until it's more than a rumour before we consider it encyclopedic. Starblind 00:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Choke (novel) and redirect there. Postdlf 00:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity ad for a vaporflick. Wyss 00:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the movie comes out. RickK 00:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Choke (novel) and then add redirect. Megan1967 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Future events are unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] scoll

Neologism, dic def, and/or original research. No relevent hits for scoll scott. Niteowlneils 23:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - we usually delete articles that are mis-spellings; dictionary definitions belong in the wiktionary; this is a dictionary definition of a misspelling. Thryduulf 23:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy delete-able. RickK 00:43, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was speedy deleted at 01:03, 10 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon who wrote nonsense. While deletable, I do not believe this met the current specific criteria for speedy deletion. Content below. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A misspelling of the name, Scott, usually when the "t"s are not crossed. Occurs in handwriting, engraving, and also in print.

• • Yeah, you're right. It's not quite nonsense. My gut still tells me it's something speediable, though I'll admit I'm not sure how. If you want me to undelete it, I will. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fart Burning

Wikipedia: namespace, so may not belong here. OTOH, it's blatant original research hanging by the merest thread of real-life happenstance, and the article itself states it's a 'cultural experiment', i.e. an attempt to popularise a neologism. No Google hits on 'wiki "fart burning"', one on 'wikipedia "fart burning"', none on ' site:en.wikipedia.org "fart burning"' - David Gerard 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete page about nothing Gazpacho 00:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity neologism, prank, borderline speedy. Wyss 00:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, prank, and why is it in the Wikipedia: namespace? Somebody in the WWW 00:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

05:38, 29 Oct 2004 Silsor (Fart Burning moved to Wikipedia:Fart Burning), FWIW. Niteowlneils 05:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete RoySmith 01:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I seem to remember voting delete on Fart Burning. --Deathphoenix 19:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and consider promotion to Olympic sport. Only kidding. DeleteSalazar 21:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but a vanity article, and a dumb one at that. bernlin2000 ∞ 22:58, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What is this nonsense?. Jambell (not signed in) 08:06, Jan 12, 2005 (GMT)
• Delete The page says it's an experiment to see what will happen. I think we should deliver the obvious outcome. Nickco3

from VfD:

Advertisement; article does not establish notability; article contains only an external link and a link to an as-yet unwritten article. --Kelly Martin 23:39, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of an article here, poss. ad. Wyss 00:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete, link is there to an existing article (actually submitted _before_ deletion request). 03:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there are links to even 3 articles now pipitas 04:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I still don't think the notability is there, although a merge into the NX technology page might be potentially appropriate if the product itself demonstrates notability. I just don't see this company as notable at this point, even if their product might eventually be. Not every open source software product is notable. --Kelly Martin 05:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, if the vote about the company goes for deletion, it won't be the end of the world... ;-). They will proof over time how much more notability we need to accredit to them, and if a negative vote now was deserved or not. I agree that not every open source software product is notable. However, this technology definitely is. (You can see at Freshmeat how fast it is going up in popularity. Its usefulness you can only really guess by testdriving it yourself. Maybe the world will take another 6 months to realize.) pipitas 23:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion