Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 10

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Celtic polytheism. Duplicates of appropriate articles need not be put through vfd. Having satisfied myself that the content was virtually identical, I have merged what little was unique to this article, and redirected it. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Druidic polytheism

Duplication of Celtic polytheism. bainer (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as the whole thing is basically a mirror. I'm saying redirect for this one -mysekurity 06:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Make into redirect. I don't see why this should even be on VFD anymore, somebody just do it.Cookiecaper 06:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would do it if I was allowed to by whatever the VfD policies are. Perhaps an admin or someone knowledgable with the policies could order that it be redirected now instead of keeping it in this VfD. DarthVader 10:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as above. -- Natalinasmpf 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berangan

This is a sentence and a half about a housing development in Malaysia. Google searches produce only real-estate, government, or other generic address-related sites. There does not appear to be anything notable about this particular neighborhood of houses. Tobycat 06:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not only is it nn, it also uses a peacock term--definately deletable. -mysekurity 06:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability established. --TheMidnighters 06:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. I feel this actually might be notable though (ie. just like Ang Mo Kio is), but sadly, the author didn't decide to clarify. -- Natalinasmpf 16:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or replace with content about the Berangan tree[8]. Pburka 18:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T.A.R.T

• The article itself says that this is little-known band.

I looked for references online and could not find them, and a little-known band is probably not encyclopedic. --Mysidia 06:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I pondered putting a speedy delete on it, but hesitated --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity, thy name is garage band. Delete, speedy if possible. More nonsense regarding this, uh, group is coming in. - Lucky 6.9 06:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Klonimus 06:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, standard band vanity. --TheMidnighters 06:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' nn, vanity, the usual "flying under the radar" -YEAH RIGHT! -mysekurity 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. When the first line says they are little known... --Etacar11 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This anon is now writing attack pages and removing the notices. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 02:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Tau Delta : Delta Beta Chapter

Vanity frat cruft. Klonimus 06:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/vanity frat cruft. 48 google results for "Delta tau delta" "Delta beta chapter" --TheMidnighters 07:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Save - This article is a valid representation of the history of Carnegie Mellon University and the Greater Pittsburgh Area. 68.234.136.220
• Save - This article represents the Delta Beta chapter of Delta Tau Delta and defines its main characteristics in a manner that follows the same tone with comic relief. BTW what the hell does the fact that 48 google results have to do with anything, its a search engine. 67.171.66.35
• Delete. One chapter of one frat. Non-notable. Gamaliel 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree with mr. nameless 68.234.136.220 there in that it represents part of Carnegie Mellon history, but it is just a frat, and a non-notable one at that, so it should be deleted -mysekurity 17:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge information into Delta Tau Delta or Carnegie Mellon University, as appropriate; redirect link to Delta Tau Delta. Individual chapters of fraternities are not inherently notable (otherwise mine would have an article by now). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 21:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn chapter. Case not helped by the fact that I smell meatpuppets or similar owing to their manner of declaring their vote, and not signing them correctly. -Splash 22:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Save I smell computer nerds who use words like meatpuppets and cruft. Sean 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote actually by 68.234.136.220, who already voted above.

• Delete, not notable and second half of article suggests hoax. Dcarrano 23:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual chapters of frats are almost never notable, and this article does not provide any evidence that it is an exception. Seems like an attack page. — Gwalla | Talk 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, boo hoo. - Thatdog 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn frat vanity. --Etacar11 02:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe a member from one fraternity is trying to make another frat look bad. Cruft. Non-notable. Yawn. —Tokek 04:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable frat cruft. JamesBurns 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete frat chapters. No redirect, since neither the University nor the National Frat is more clearly relevant. Xoloz 08:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. And the lack of familiarity with those who use the term "save" rather than "keep" seems to be evident of sockpuppetry. -- Natalinasmpf 12:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Many fraternities can be notable and encylopedic, but this one is a Non-notable fraternity.--GrandCru 04:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Local chapter. I smell college Greeks who think "it is very important to build your social skills while you are at college almost as important as your academic skills!" I had 8 years of grading that junk. It's utterly predictable. Deletion, however, is on the grounds that this is a local instance of a national organization. It could conceivably be itemized as a line in the article on the national organization, but not as a paragraph. Geogre 13:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. local frat chapter non-notable carmeld1 03:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Save It may only be a local chapter but this chapter has participated in one of the Pittsburgh's biggest philanthrapy projects many years running, they deserve recognition for their hard work as well as keeping a social scene at Carnegie Mellon (THERE IS NO SOCIAL SCENE THERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SCHOOL IS WORKING TO KILL IT). Plus you guys all care way too much about this online encyclopedia its not that intense of a thing that 100 people have to vote on one article. you all need to get a life vote from 67.171.66.35, who vandalized this discussion on the 10th

• So you think insulting us will cause us to change our mind? Wow, you must be a frat boy. Gamaliel 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever. Yes in the name of a clean and efficient online encyclopedia, this artical should be deleted. However, look at yourselves you're arguing over this. We're from Carnegie Mellon, if you really make believe that we're some sort of muscle headed beer drinking frat retards you're kidding yourselves. Wake up, you live in your cyber worlds and we tried to contribute in our own quirky way. Our fraternity has the best of both worlds, a bunch of smart kids who get laid and make more money than the majority of you losers living with your parents.

• If your life is so idyllic, why keep coming back here? If we're such losers, why do you feel the need to brag in an attempt to impress us? Gamaliel 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lurve

Part dicdef (WP:WINAD), part gibberish, unless anyone can tell me who the "Stisters" are. Delete per either criterion. --Dmcdevit 06:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with above. (Creator's only two other edits are blankings)--TheMidnighters 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's just a colloquialism for love. A redirect does not seem appropriate. Delete. Uncle G 13:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm in agreement with those above. It doesn't quite nesessitate a transwiki to wiktionary, and it has no place here, so it must go, I believe. -mysekurity 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - apparent neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical neologism: "When Lurve is said, it is usually in all capital letters". Purlese. -Splash 22:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable colloquialism. -- Natalinasmpf 12:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete non-notable neologism/colloquialism. Unworthy of a place on Wikipedia.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Best Inc.

Unconvinced that this company is in any way notable. Difficult to google, but "Personal Best Inc"+Nutritional+consulting+"New York" yields about 1800 hits - almost all of them web directories. And The Article Is All Written With Every Word Capitalised, which si really annoying. Thankfully there are only 15 words in it. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - it doesn't appear notable, and it had many results, but none of them notable. Oz Garcia doesn't appear to be notable either, and probably should be deleted as well.... -mysekurity 17:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ad. "Personal Best Inc." (Note Speech Marks) Gets Only 499 Google Hits, So Even If It Was All Of Them, It Would Still Be Non-Notable. Irritating, Isn't It?-Splash 22:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ampere (band)

Delete marked for speedy, but not sure if it qualifies yet (although it probably should). Isn't noted at Allmusic, no notability established, so probably standard nn band vanity. Could be proven wrong though. Speedy if it qualifies of course. TheMidnighters 06:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN band vanity. Also, is screamo like emo but with screaming? Leithp 08:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Since notability has now been established. Leithp 07:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn vanity, etc. and yes, scremo is emo music but they scream a lot and junk. The mere fact that this article is only one sentence and is pretty bad as-is, leads me to believe it should be vaporized -mysekurity 17:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bassist is a former member of Orchid (band) and band is signed to Ebullition Records satisfying WP:MUSIC. I will add this info the article. This is a good reason to vote against Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. Pburka 18:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Orchid (band) extremely notable? That's what the guideline requires. And being signed to a majour independent label doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, releasing two or more albums does, according to the article they only have one release, and it's an EP. However, they do pretty well by Google and would appear noted (however slightly) in the genre. Vote changed from Delete to Weak Keep. --TheMidnighters 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, signed to a major label and notable member is good enough for me. Kappa 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of the weakest kind. Might be just barely notable. --Etacar11 02:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. JamesBurns 08:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Pburka. Yes, this is an excellent reason to vote against CSD 3-C. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC per Kappa. Radiant_>|< 14:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Commment Just to clarify once more, this band does not meet WP:MUSIC. That doesn't imply that it shouldn't be kept, just that it shouldn't be kept for that reason. Orchid was notable (apparently), but not extremely so, meaning inclusion of the bassist (whose name is nowhere to be found despite numerous claims that he's notable) does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, nor does releasing one EP on a notable label. --TheMidnighters 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable per Kappa. WP:MUSIC is a poor policy, and should not be referred to. Almafeta 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, it's notable but needs to get to a higher quality, MajorLeagueSoccerFreakSevenSevenSeven
• Keep. While not extremely notable, an effort was made to make it notable. The band in question is signed and has released material of a sort. There is a strong chance they will gradually become more notable in the future. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 18:06, 18 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goldlined Success

Delete - It's actually nonsense but might not have qualified at first glance. Even if you don't deem it nonsense: nn band vanity, no Allmusic page, no notability established, 8 google hits. All in all something that should be deleted. TheMidnighters 06:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. It's funny, you would expect that the "the greatest band to ever grace the airwaves" would have more than 4 google hits to their name. Leithp 09:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete typical vanity and nn. Plus they just had to use a peacock term, and, as Leithp said, they've only got 4 hits, so not much truth in their claim. Gone it is -mysekurity 17:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I listened to this band, they are not so great. Seriously, their last ten albums were mediocre and they are only milking the system now just because of their incredible ability to make marketable pop tunes. It's about time we dethrone Goldlined Success! Alex 20:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity, doubtful claims. --Etacar11 02:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teleperformance

• Delete Advert for a nonnotable corporation. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I concur--coblin 08:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. And gah, you tagged it before I did. -- Natalinasmpf 09:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Google returns 59,800 results, and says its the 2nd largest call outsourcing...thingy.... so it could be notable, but I doubt anyone's heard of it beyond their small borders. My mind's telling me delete, so i wrote that -mysekurity 17:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Number and size of clients makes it notable. That makes this a verified stub. Almafeta 21:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How come a company that operates in 36 countries in the Americas, Asia and Europe is not notable? - Nabla 03:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valid stub on a large company. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots and Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots. Eliot 15:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atari 2600/Screenshots and Atari 5200/Screenshots

Wikipedia is neither a repository of images nor a file storage area. As such, both of these should be deleted. I think the images themselves can all be put on IfD in conjunction with this, but I'm not sure. --Dmcdevit 09:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. My view is that these images and the screenshot pages are relevant to the articles. If the images are deleted by IfD, then it will be necessary to delete these pages. DarthVader 09:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insert relevant images into appropriate articles, not make articles themselves about them. The images aren't works of art, so they don't necessarily need an actual article on them. -- Natalinasmpf 09:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, and untranswikiable to Commons. (And why these two in particular? What of Commodore VIC-20 Games Screenshots, Gallery of Atari 7800 screenshots, Gallery of ColecoVision screenshots, Gallery of Intellivision screenshots, Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots, Gallery of Sega Genesis screenshots, Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots and Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots?) --Cryptic (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. But that would warrant it at a nother title. Having it as a subdivision of an actual article is inappropriate. -- Natalinasmpf 09:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know about those. The only reason I came across these is because someone wrongly tagged them for transwiki to Commons, even though they are fair use. Let me quote our policy page: "[Wikipedia is not] Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context [...] Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted." To me, that says it all. --Dmcdevit 10:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or make into a category for the images. Either way the concept is fine as it stands. As I see it this is like a commons page except it can have fair use images the commons can't. gren 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I have to admit a younger version of myself yelped in delight at this. However it is non-encyclopedic. IMissTheOneButtonJoystick 11:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And the other articles mentioned could also be nominated for VfD. Noise attracts noise, and drives out signal. IMissTheOneButtonJoystick

• Keep (but move to Gallery of Atari 2600 screenshots and Gallery of Atari 5200 screenshots for consistency). The quote from the "Wikipedia is not..." policy page actually defends this article: this is not a "collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles", these images clearly "are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles" (emphasis mine), the vast majority of these images are being used in articles on the games in question, the rest hopefully will be. —Stormie 12:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no legitimate reason for deletion that I can see jamesgibbon 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Darth Vader makes a good point, plus it's just a sub-page. Let IfD handle the images case by case. As they are now, they are still worthy of being used... (If I'm looking for screenshots on google or the like, I'm going to find them here, it's usable) -mysekurity 17:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While they cannot stand alone, those two pages complement their respective articles. I would say merge with the articles about the two systems, but the pages themselves really shouldn't have that many images on them. You (Talk) 22:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge the Breakout image into its respective article (it has none ATM), but purge the rest. I doubt very highly that anyone is going to stumble across this article using Wikipedia search, and the screenshots provide little information not already presented in the articles, which already have screenshots anyway. Fernando Rizo 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (more reasoning for my vote) These screenshots show how the graphics for the systems evolved as the systems aged and also are samples of what kind of graphics the systems could produce. You (Talk) 22:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Stormie. Xoloz 08:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move per Stormie. Almafeta 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep 'per stormie Yuckfoo 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 06:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virus Bulletin

Delete. Non-notable, POV, advertising and vanity. If anything the name is totally inappropriate as a lot of sites are named "virus bulletins". Natalinasmpf 09:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm in agreement with the nominator. Plus the Peacock term just sticks out, (obvious advertising of a nn magazine--vandalism) -mysekurity 17:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Impossible to Google, so also unverifiable without sources. -Splash 22:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the tone was inappropriate, but I fixed that. The magazine is certainly notable in the anti-virus world: it is well-known, they organize conferences [9], they have a well known certification program [10], etc. Easily verifiable. Sietse 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sietse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hjthelp@hotmail.com

Non Notable. Merge with Hijackthis Redwolf24 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising/promo. JamesBurns 08:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redwolf24 09:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Natalinasmpf 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge then delete. Seeaxid 09:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (crossed out by Redwolf24. Less than 100 edits.) 100 edits isn't a general rule; it's up to the closing admin to decide. -- Essjay · Talk
• Delete This is useless. ike9898 12:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Essjay · Talk 14:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could be spam harvester, so I don't think merging it would help. Redirect, then if the user wants, it can be added to Hijackthis -mysekurity 17:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Rhobite 05:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy del. link spam, should have just been listed as speedy. ∞Who?¿? 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Can't have been listed as speedy, as there were no links to make it link spam, but Delete all the same. — Asbestos | Talk 13:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 07:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futurist architecture

Non-notable, original research, hopelessly POV. Furthermore, it doesn't define "futurist architecture", and I'm not sure it's even a word. Google reveals only 1,170 edits, poor for an architectural movement. [11] If anything, I am not aware the post-modernist movement has had a successor yet. * Delete. Natalinasmpf 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - omg, don't tell me post-modernism still reigns. Kind of like Queen Victoria? --Mothperson 15:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redwolf24 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No disrespect, but maybe y'all should actually read a few of the Googled references. This article is a poorly written substub, but it's referring a legitimate part of Futurism, the art movement from around the beginning of the 20th century. See here. Admittedly, they were bigger on manifestos then actual buildings, but it's certainly notable enough subject for a self-respecting encyclopedia. (Oops, sorry, forgot to sign - Calton | Talk 11:56, 10 July 2005; added 00:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC))
• Keep Small, but exists. I do not see anything to warrant to the other two tags of dispute and original research. Enlighten me? PostModernistIdiot 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with the self-styled idiot jamesgibbon 15:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very very notable. David | Talk 15:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, obviously, though I don't blame the nominator for not recognising this. Nobody not familiar with the early twentieth century art movement of futurism and the work of architect Frank Lloyd Wright (Prairie Style) could be expected to make any sense of the text. Shows just how bad an article can be and still be worth keeping. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup/expand. Tony Sidaway said it right, but it definately needs to be improved. -mysekurity 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand/cleanup. Notable form of architecture but current article isn't much chop. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Will rename to Melody Love as recommended by many keep votes. --Allen3 ^talk 18:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melody (porn star)

Does not attempt to distinguish last name, or identity. I'm not sure if it will ever become encylopedic, thus doesn't even try to establish notability. Looks POV as well. Delete. Natalinasmpf 09:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell, Delete. Uncle G 13:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of no value jamesgibbon 15:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and I agree with Uncle G. While I have not *cough* done any research on the topic, it appears that this has no place on an encyclopedia such as this one. -mysekurity 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Melody Love (porn star). IMDB lists 61 movies over a 7 year career. Pburka 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the sex industry assembly line. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Pburka. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Pburka is a mensch for admitting to knowing that... in his honor, move to Melody Love (porn star). Dcarrano 23:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another porn "star". 61 movies over 7 years sounds like par for the course. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just a worker, not a star. 01:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC) CalJW (talk · contribs) forgot to sign
• Delete I have no objection to porn star biography articles, but there just isn't enough here. 23skidoo 02:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename Having 62 films over 7 years shows staying power. She is also listed in the IMDb database, which is frequently used to establish the validity of claims about being an actress. The type of films don't matter if they are in IMDb, do they? If it was POV then it should have been tagged as such and not brought over to VfD. Giving the article the wrong name is also not a reason to bring it to VfD. Her filmography is more extensive then many other porn actresses. The difference here is that her article is still a stub. Vegaswikian 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just checked IMDB. There are no results for "Melody Love", and four for just "Melody", two of which seem like they might be this person (both of whom only have a single listed credit). Which is she? — Gwalla | Talk 17:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment she is the one listed in the link in the article. Vegaswikian 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. IMDB indicates some notability even if her films arent my cup of tea. JamesBurns 08:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Pburka and IMDb. Xoloz 08:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to somewhere that is more clearly about her. Being on IMDB makes her notable, but do you know how many porn stars go by the name Melody? Almafeta 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please she is fine Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Melody Love (porn star). Poli (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Melody Love (porn star) as suggested. Hall Monitor 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Tyrant

This article appears to have been written by one of the members of the band in question. This band is unsigned, was founded in 2003, and "has yet to record any material" (emphasis added). Most of the relatively small number of google results appear to have been created by members of the band.--Joel7687 09:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Vanity, signified by the signign at the bottom. Only 273 google hits, and that's not excluding this article. [12] and possible mirrors, so it's even less. Natalinasmpf 09:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication that this band meets WP:MUSIC. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. —Cryptic (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per reasons above. Also, the user should learn not to sign articles, and Joe said it right, they haven't released anything, so they really have no place here -mysekurity 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am the person who submitted the article, and yes, I am a member of the band. But all the reasons posted here are valid. Sorry about not reading the rules properly. SpectrumDT 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem. Stuff about your band would be perfectly fine to put on your user page, I think. --Etacar11 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it OK to use the exact same page as a user subpage (like this)? SpectrumDT 19:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks fine to me, as long as it isn't categorized. (Really only articles should be categorized, I believe). If I'm wrong, someone correct me. :) --Etacar11 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Category info now removed. (I put it there because it was on the Nile page, on which I based my article.) SpectrumDT 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty (porn star)

Kitty (porn star) was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty (porn star)/2005-07-10.

• Delete. Non-notable. Not every porn star should have an entry on wikipedia. There is no information here about her anyway; this is basically just an ad for her website. Her name apparently is inaccurate too so it should be renamed if it is kept but it should not be kept at all. If she is not known to the general public, or even most of the porn-watching public, she doesn't belong in wikipedia. csloat 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. --Dysepsion 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 45 films at the imdb. If she is known to a reasonable number of the porn-watching public, she belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia like wp. Kappa 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The IMDB isn't based on legions of fans creating articles; most pages are created and maintained by agents to help promote their clients. As a longtime member of the "porn-watching public", I will avow that I have not only never heard of her, but have never even seen her. This article is just an ad. Kafziel 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa (OMG!) User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• My opinion has not changed since the last AFD discussion. No biographical sources are cited by the article, or were produced as a result of the prior AFD discussion. (The IMDB listing gives her date of birth and height in its biographical section. If that were all of the biographical source information required for a biography in an encyclopaedia, everyone with a passport or a driving licence would qualify.) Note that the place of birth given in this article has no source apart from the almost certainly entirely fictitious biography on the web site. People in the pornography industry are usually deliberately unverifiable by their own choice, for obvious reasons, and this person appears to be no exception. The purported biographies that accompany pornographic pictures are usually fiction, moreover. As before, delete. Uncle G 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We have plenty of biographies of fictional characters. Kappa 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Obviously this is a broader subject than just this AfD, but fictional characters are verifiable in that we know what books/movies/etc. they're in, there's often published criticism concerning them, essays about them, etc. What's kind problematic here is that there's really nothing verifiably known about this person other than that she's been filmed having sex 35 times. --W.marsh 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, but we know that she's been filmed having sex 35 times!!! (ye gads). Indeed, IMDB knows that. BD2412 T 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information though, obviously. Biographies are written on verifiable information... it's just hard to see what's going to be verifiable here other than the contents of her IMDB page, that's what I meant. I'm sure this argument has been held before though. --W.marsh 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As W.marsh points out, the fictional characters for which we have biographies have independent secondary source material available, such as third-party annotations of or commentaries on the works of fiction concerned. See the References section in Sherlock Holmes, for example. Uncle G 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • What sort of "proof" are you looking for? [13], [14] User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I actually wrote "independent secondary source material". Ironically, the "proof" that you've offered is proof of my point. You've hyperlinked to a list of products for sale in a catalogue that contains no biographical information whatsoever and an on-line biography every field of which apart from the birthdate, ethnicity, and hair colour is "No data" — giving as much information about this person as a driving licence or a passport, as I said. I have a passport. Do I get an article? Uncle G 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you in the IMDb? Turnstep 20:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • He could be, if he's willing to pay the fee for gold member access. For a few bucks, anybody can be in the IMDB. Kafziel 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
            • According to their homepage, there are 2 million people listed on IMDb. If we make an article for each of them, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Kafziel 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Sounds good to me. You do the first million, then I'll do the second. :) Turnstep 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete commercial advertisement for non-notable pr0n-media product. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:44, Jan. 11, 2006
• Delete - I watch A LOT of porn and I have never heard of her. I haven't heard of her, she ain't notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If a run-of-the-mill college basketball player played in 45 games over three years but had no major awards and was not a likely high-round draft pick in the NBA, we would kick his article out in a flash (that's not a hypothetical - we have done it many times). If a 21 year old girl appears in 45 videos in an industry that cranks them out in a matter of days, she's a "star" without a single shred of evidence. No awards, no critical acclaim, nothing but a list of her "body of work". Boggles my mind. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; ditto what Cyde Weys said, above. Kafziel 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What DS1953 said. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a star with no brillance.--MONGO 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DS1953 Reyk 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DS1953 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and DS1953.
• Delete. No sign of mention that are not actor listing or her site. gren グレン ^? 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Serves no purpose except advertising. CalJW 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

* Keep as per Kappa --kingboyk 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Confusion between her and Kitty Jung. --kingboyk 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Uncle G, and it looks like advertising. Robin Johnson 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 45 movies for a porn star is not the same as 45 movies for a hollywood actor. Obli (Talk) 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the IMDb in itself is not an indicator notability. -R. fiend 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa BenBurch 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cyde. Themusicking 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with DS1953, Uncle G, and Cyde Weys. Barno 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BIO ,WP:BLP, per Obli, adult entertainer can be notable, but we can't use same movie or google counts as other potentially notable people.Obina 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• 'keep please this porn star is notable too Yuckfoo 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Please, this pornstar is not notable Eusebeus 23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider moving to "Kitty Jung (porn star)" instead. Is there a seperate set of criteria being used for adult film stars? In any case, this should be notable and WP:V enough. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Kitty Jung is a different porn star. Kappa 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But external links suggests she is Kitty Jung. I think you're right and the article must be wrong. --kingboyk 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Proto t c 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. We don't waive WP:V just because the subject has a lot of sex. --Malthusian (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Haham hanuka 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not notable enough as one editor said indicates a level of notability. No work done on the article since the last AfD is not a reason to delete the article. If it was, we could flood AfD with many other articles. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. She is real, and there is information about her. Also if the article is correct, she is not American born. We know that some editors have raised a bias issue with articles of foreign subjects. Is this part of the reason there is little information available? In the end I don't see a reason to delete this article. I do see another article in need of impovement. Kappa is right on this one. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMO 45 film credits on IMDB generally makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per csloat. Stifle 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for verifiability difficulties. Sliggy 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a big difference between 45 film credits, and 45 video credits over a period of less than two years. Ed g2s 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The difference between appearing in 45 commercial films and 45 porno videos is that each of the 45 porno videos constitutes a starring role. Porno films do not hire extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.128.151.131 (talk • contribs)
  • I would argue that given the necessary talent to perform in the starring role, porn stars should be compared to stuntmen rather than Tom Cruise. --Malthusian (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep porn is notable.  Grue  13:40, 16 January 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 18:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-British casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

I can't see a for this page. The dead (whose names will be revealed) will number around 70 - if we really need a repository for a list of them it should be on Wikisource (and there'd be no need for a separate list of Non-British casualties). The numbers injured will (1) never be known; and (2) be very likely not broken down into nationalities, rather removing the need for the rest of the article, jguk 10:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Un-needed - at best, merge. -- Natalinasmpf 10:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but respectfully --Doc (?) 12:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Astrotrain 14:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, legitimate information, but not as a separate piece jamesgibbon 15:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• merge with other candidate for delete below, all casualties of same. Not appropriate to have a caste system of listed casualtiesSandpiper 16:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• This article was created by me, since it was listed as a red link in a series of articles about the attack. This was created along the same lines as the foreign victims of the 9/11 attacks. I conquer with Jguk, we can possibly merge this with the main list of victims, and make a note to say if they were British or not. So, I ask for this article to be merged. Thanks, and sorry for wasting everyone's time here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Zscout. Also, when you and Jguk conquer together, I get frightened ;). -- Jonel | Speak 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Sandpiper's right, and so is Doc. Delete it, but maybe wait a little while? Or at least merge it to where it's needed. -mysekurity 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First of all, who is to determine who is British and who isn't? Someone who was born abroad but has lived in Britain for many years has every right to consider himself or herself British. It's a silly, needless article. Moncrief 19:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the other candidate just down there ↓. We have so much 9/11-cruft we can spare a bit of Londonbomb-cruft too. -Splash 22:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings as per creator Zscout370's request. Dcarrano 23:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Casualty lists like these are not encyclopaedic and do not belong here. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I already merged the information to the article below, so this page can be deleted now, but gentle please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect → Lasse Virén --Allen3 ^talk 18:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viren

Delete. Wikipedia is not a foreign dicdef. Natalinasmpf 10:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• At the very best, this would be a redirect to virus. There is nothing here worth giving to Wiktionary, which can do better than this from a standing start. A name-disambiguation page might grow here, if we ever get anyone else with the family name other than Lasse Virén (to which Lasse Viren redirects). For now, simply Redirect to Lasse Virén. Uncle G 13:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lasse Virén as sugguested above. WP is not a foreign slang dicdef, and it doesn't belong in wiktionary; it should be redirected, as Uncle G said.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiberius Junius Brutus

Reason why the page should be deleted I noted the discussion page for this entry on the 22nd May with the view that it was an invention. I invited verification from the author. None has been forthcoming. I therefore conclude that whoever wrote the page has no interest in defending its legitimacy and so the page should be deleted unless, at this eleventh hour, proper verification is forthcoming. -David91 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

• Interestingly:
  • The article tells us that Tiberius Junius Brutus "was the younger son of Lucius Junius Brutus", "rebelled against his father's wishes along with his brother Titus Junius Brutus", and "aided [...] Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in attempting to reclaim the Roman throne"; that "Tiberius and Titus were captured and brought before the embryonic Senate of Rome", and "brought to trial"; and that "Lucius Brutus called for their execution, and they were beheaded".
  • The nominator, in the aforementioned talk page tells us that "LJB was killed in battle having killed his two sons", which does not contradict what the article actually says.
  • The entry for Brutus, L. Junius in L'Emprière's tells us that "His sons conspired with the Tuscan ambassador to restore the Tarquins; and when discovered, they were tried and condemned before their father, who himself attended at their execution.", and cites several sources, albeit in the almost undecipherable manner that the constraints of paper cause to be used.
  • Lucius Junius Brutus also discusses the tale of his execution of his sons.
• Even though I cannot immediately verify the name of the son, and even though the story may be an outright creation of Roman historians, this is the story as apparently related by Roman historians (albeit reported in a little more detail than reported in L'Emprière's). The major thing that worries me is that the original version of the article has the tell-tale signs of a copyright violation from a paper book. As long as that is not in fact the case, Keep, albeit possibly trimming any of the details given that are not verified either by the above or by direct reference to the histories written by Lavilius and Livy (whom the article does attribute information to). Uncle G 14:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As dearly as I love a truly good hoax, this, alas, is not one of them. The story is substantially true (Livy ii.5) and was commented on in Antiquity already. Very quickly, I also find it alluded to in passing by Claudian (IV Cons. Hon. 611) (and see the Loeb editor's note to the English translation there). I can also confirm the connection of Tiberius Brutus with the famous Brutus, both his father and the far later assassin of Caesar. I didn't check the details. Copyvio of course is another matter; I don't recognize it, if it is, but I'm not the world's best classicist. Bill 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I've found the same references as Bill (hi Bill, nice to see you here). I would however suggest a tweak. This period is not documented by any contemporary sources, so by he time it was written down it was the stuff of legend. So making it clear that this is accordring to later sources and not necessarily the true story would be a good idea. Cnyborg 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, yes. Taking some time out from my little churches in Umbria.... Your tweak is a good idea, yes. Bill

• Keep, this is more-or-less verifiable. R. Leigh Merritt wrote a play "Lucius Junius Brutus; Father of his Country" in which the dissenting son of Lucius Junius Brutus is named Tiberius. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm with Bill on this one, and maybe Cnyborg. Useful for those looking for information on this topic. -mysekurity 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone. I no longer have my reference texts and so could not verify the material. I am relieved that I was wrong and that the entry is substantially correct although some of the detail and the style does seem to lack conviction at times. -David91 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was a bit tricky, but I'll try closing this now. (Closing the first AFD debate was much easier, when there was a clear keep consensus.) On raw vote count there is not a real consensus for outright deletion, and the main objection has been that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe that the objection is to the list of names in the article. However, the article has a lead section which describes the recovery of bodies and treatment of the wounded, material which is not really covered by the "memorial" argument. I will therefore call this a merge of the lead section only to the "casualties" section of 7 July 2005 London bombings, and redirect there. The list of names will be dropped, but I'll add the BBC News link to the main article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings/2005-07-10.

WP:NOT a memorial. Lists of victims are unencyclopedic and not generally individually notable, as per the precedant of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York (now on WP:DRV). The opening paragraphs should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings. The list of victims should be deleted. It is very sad that they died, and highly reprehensible that such an attack was made, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to memorialize them. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Friday (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there anything link this for the World Trade Centre attacks? There should be consistency across attacks. If there is not, then delete, but if there is, then keep. --LeftyG 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See [[15]]--FRS 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous AFD [[16]] which was approx 40:10 in favor of keeping; this is an informative, NPOV article FRS 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. The list of names is unencyclopedic, while the other details in this article fit well in 7 July 2005 London bombings. In the articles relating to the incidents on September 11, 2001, casualties are summarized in September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities. Follow precedent, and avoid unencyclopedic list-cruft, however poignant or sad the subject is. -Rebelguys2 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per What Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't WP:NOT trump AFD in any case? -R. fiend 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The narrative could be used in the article on the attack, but NOT is policy. Put a link to an external source in the article. -- goatasaur 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not see how a simple list of names is a "memorial". We are not honoring anyone here, just listing verified facts in an impartial manner. If we are not to list casualties in Wikipedia articles, the policy should say that. Right now it doesn't. Kaldari 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. does say that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about lists of casualties. It says "memorials". Whether lists of casualties are considered memorials depends mostly on their context, IMO. And I don't think in this case the context has anything to do with "honoring" anyone, thus I don't see this being a memorial. Of course as long as the policy is ambigiously worded, it will solely be a matter of opinion. Kaldari 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• weak delete little point in having a policy if we don't abide by it. could probably keep the narrative however, per Goatasaur. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a memorial. Send to Wikicities if you must. Radiant_>|< 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Do you guys consider Kent State shootings to be in violation of WP:ISNOT for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I'm just trying to get an idea here for what constitutes a "memorial". Kaldari 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Kent State one is an article, which reads like a newspaper clipping. This reads like a placard at a kiosk in a memorial. Delete Ruby 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? What makes an article cross that boundary? Kaldari 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Right off the top of my head, when the article is written with an emphasis on the suffering and loss of the families, as if pandering to their grief, instead of dispassionately discussing all the facts of the incident. Ruby 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I basically agree. In the Kent State article the victims are mentioned within the text to help further explain the incident (that being said, I think the articles on the victims could be merged back in), while in this example it's just a list of names thrown together. Now there probably is some gray area between the two examples, bu tthis article just isn't in it. -R. fiend 05:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Impressive article. If wikipedia does this stuff, you don't have to know where to look. Golfcam 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. *drew 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge text into main article. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: What constitutes a memorial? Kaldari 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as with the list of 9/11 victims and so on. WP:ISNOT a memorial, and the list of names adds nothing to our understanding of the event itself. This looks to me lika an example of systemic bias: nobody is pressing for a list of Tsunami victims, after all. It is problematic, though, since the chances of a full list of casualties making it seem to increase as the number reduces, making it more likely that some minor incident will have a full list than would be the case for a major tragedy. In the end, we do not usually have lists of people who have no independent claim to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 08:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:CSB. Stifle 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Sad but not encyclopaedic. Also, the edit link at the top of this section seems to be screwy. Proto t c 11:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge: I'm not certain whether some of those commenting above have actually looked at the article, since it is not simply "a list of the victims", it is also a description of the process of identifying them, amongst other things. Just deleting this artice would lose important information which was split out of the main article for reasons of length. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• The nominator suggested a merge of what content is appropriate. Yes, some of the content here is good, and should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings if it's not already. Friday (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly. The paragraphs on how the victims were identified and related encyclopedic content should be merged intoi another article, I think 7 July 2005 London bombings. This articel should IMO be deleted, and the actual list of casualties not included. if there is a reliable list of casualties posted elsewhere, that should probably be linked from the merged articel (as would have been needed anyway, to source this list). DES ^(talk) 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims. The list of victims duplicates the list given at the BBC site (see first link), and is probably derived from it: I do not see that there is any encyclopedic value to the list. Note that the page as a whole is not a memorial: this page should not be deleted on that basis without giving a chance for a merge of the non-memorial information on the page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge information to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims per WP:NOT. Also note WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and the list elevates the people killed here into "encyclopedic" while something like List of civilians killed in Israeli police actions is still a redlink. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Before anyone objects about GFDL, there are ways to make a D & M comply. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ezeu 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, precedent and WP:NOT. --Aaron 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I don't see any grieveing families here. The top of the article is almost certainly too long, and duplicates too much in other articles. I think a merge is a second best, because these lists will unbalance whatever target is chosen; but why throw away this? If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. Septentrionalis 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. " Does that strike anyone else as a really bad reason to keep an article? We could use that logic on any high school student vanity page ("this person may someday be Prime Minister, we'll want this information then!"). If bombing victim Reginald Worthingham IV's sister becomes PM, we can link to the main article: "Prime Minister Victoria Worthingham's brother Reginald was killed in the 7 July 2005 London bombings." The other names won't add anything. -R. fiend 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge text into main article. --SFrank85 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but drop list. Don't just delete; it would leave a gaping hole in 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Casualties. Melchoir 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Informative and useful Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The list of names is neither informative nor useful. Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possible transwiki to Wikisource. It is sad that these people are dead, but no more encyclopaedic than a list of everybody who has ever died of cancer, or ridden a bicycle. Lord Bob 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the lead section? Shouldn't we preserve that in the main article? Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I must object to your statement. A list of the names of people who died in a notable event is more encyclopaedic than a list of names of people who did not die in a notable event. Is it encyclopedic enough to include in Wikipedia? Depends on the circumstances (see Kent State shootings). Such rediculous equivocations are not helpful to the debate. Obviously there is a difference between this list and a list of everyone who ever died of cancer. The question is: does the difference matter enough to make it worth including in Wikipedia? Kaldari 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per deletion of previous lists of disaster victims such as List of Hillsborough disaster casualties. Qwghlm 09:53, 31 January 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the 2005 London bombings

Transwiki to Wikiquote, jguk 10:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think it is well put together. And it would have to be broken up to move to WikiQuote. Plus I don't think it's totally appropriate there, either. Newsong 11:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support if it stays in its current format. It shouldn't be broken up by person.--Madison Gray 13:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, are you supporting? Please read WP:GVFD#Votes for clearer and commonly understood ways of expressing your opinion about the deletion of articles. Uncle G 13:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep- excellent summarisation of the responses of various people, and not all of it is quotes. Astrotrain 14:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki source material to Wikisource:7 July 2005 London bombings, and move quotes to Wikiquote, reduce those sections to a summary. But keep this page and expand with things like the royal family's visits, police investigation, possible trials and any interesting things to note, such as whether it has an effect on blood donations, racism, feelings towards ID cards, the proposed US-style security department etc etc. Joe D (t) 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No issue with Wikisource and/or Wikiquote having the same information, but this is encyclopedic and deserves to presented on our pages. If there was a way of including text from Wikisource/Wikiquote without duplication, much as we do with images, then that would be different. -- Chris j wood 16:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is really part of the main article about the incident. In the future it might be relegated to a different wiki but right now it is describing part of the events. The collection together makes it a report of reactions rather than a simple quote.Sandpiper 16:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and use Joe D.'s idea. -mysekurity 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the ideas expressed above. Rather than being redundant, I'll post my vote without further comment: keep. IanManka 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikiquote, but keep a few choice quotes - e.g. Queen, PM, pope, archbishop-of-canterbury, Chirac for the main article. ~~~~ 20:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Death to Wikiquote. Dmn / Դմն 21:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Joe D: Transwiki the quotes, and make this article a factual account of what actions were taken in response to the bombings. Dcarrano 23:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This was originally a section of the main article that was moved out to save space. Deletion would be a dangerous precedent for other breakout articles. Should be in the main encyclopedia, not a little known offshoot. CalJW 01:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Per CalJW. Whig 04:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Astrotrain. Also, many of the quotes are partial and/or have no official English translation. KissL 08:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Astrotrain. This information should not be lost. William Flowers 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, this is what Wikiquote is for, regardless of how little respect you may have for it. Collections of quotes do not belong on Wikipedia. And get rid of all those useless flag icons. ed g2s • talk 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The flag icons allow a reader to scan the list for a particular country with relative ease, and it brightens up the list significantly. Astrotrain 17:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I think some of the less notable quotes can be removed. 62.253.128.12 12:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep More than just a list of quotes. As CalJW pointed out, this was originally a section of the main article that was moved out to save space. Sonic Mew 16:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in order to avoid having the main article cluttered with this. --carlb 17:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikiquote and merge more notable responses back into main article. Kaldari 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki as per Joe D. --nixie 09:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have done a little work to make this less quote-centric. I still think many or most of the quotes shouls be removed, but it should be clear that there is enough to say about other responses to make this page worthwhile. Joe D (t) 09:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Chris j wood.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 10:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per CalJW. And I like the new organization of this article. CanadianCaesar 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable list. Do not move to wikiquote. Break-out articles ought to be kept in the main encyclopedia. Klonimus 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is a break-out article and any debate about deletion should be postponed until things have settled down a bit. Carcharoth 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikiquote. MathiasRav 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Dejvid 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC) but a lot of the international quotes are not notable and could be transwikiedDejvid 10:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. violet/riga (t) 10:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a piece which reflects the zeitgeist as well as recording the individual quotes. As such it add to the overall knowledge of the subject and deserves a place in an encyclopedia. Unbehagen 16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, educational, interesting, and informative. 24 at 15:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aeonfalls

A MUD in closed beta, to be released "sometime in 2005". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cryptic (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Aaron Brenneman 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, premature vanity. If the game is released and achieves notability, then an article will be appropriate. —Stormie 12:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Stormie's right. No notability yet. If it becomes notable, I encourage those interested to write about it, but for now, not worthy. -mysekurity 18:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate waskeep as rewritten. Eliot 16:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Foley

Nice biography, but Foley did not seem notable enough to merit an article. Or have I set the bar too high...? --Mysidia 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and speedy. Way too high A very important leader of the radical Australian Aboriginal community. The vFD is a little like suggesting a VFD on Malcolm X. --Porturology 11:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the radical Australian Aboriginal Community, I cannot find any articles about such a community on the Wikipedia, and its significance is not really explained. --Mysidia 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Australian aborigines are the indigenous people of Australia. In the Eastern states (of Australia) they prefer to be called by a number of names of which two of the most common are 'Koori' and Murri. They make up 2% of the population and through their dispossesion and discrimination, both blatant and subtle, are an underclass of Australian society (stop me if this is getting difficult). One of the great political questions of Australia is the treatment of the Koori. There are many views on this; recently a party called One Nation attracted some support by calling for a stop of government policies aimed to help aborigines. Gary Foley, who has >500 hits on Google is a prominent Koori who has a more radical approach to the questions of reconciliation, compensation for the stolen generation, government support etc. He was one of a group of tertiary educated Kooris who became politically active and received public notice from the late 60s onwards.--Porturology 11:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Great.. explain some of this more clearly in the article and keep --Mysidia 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • However, I thought it was too well written and is in fact a copy vio--Porturology 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Revise so as not to be a copyvio. If what Porturology is saying is correct, then this is notable. However, in its current state, it is both illegal and not clearly notable. -mysekurity 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Replace previous version with Porturology's statements. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . Notable aboriginal leader. Notable aboriginal leader see [17] but I will rewrite article as Gary FoleyCapitalistroadster 03:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Have written Gary Foley article. Given that the article under discussion is a copyvio, I would propose having this as a redirect to that article once the copyvio process has run its course. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Great Article on Gary Foley. The original author of Gary foley has removed the VFD and written a 3 line stub . I am not sure of the protocol but IMO this should be wiped and the page become a redirect--Porturology 12:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep the one by capitalistroadster it is really good Yuckfoo 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I posted original article as I thought it was important to include Gary Foley on Wikipedia(above reasons explain why well enough) I did copy & paste it from another article(in fact the first google link re same). I was unaware of how copyright works in relation to Wikipedia. I did not intend to take any credit for the bio, just start a thread on Gary Foley that hopefully would be updated changed etc. User:Khanada

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red sands

Another MUD not yet open to the public. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cryptic (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Aaron Brenneman 12:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, premature vanity. If the game is released and achieves notability, then an article will be appropriate. —Stormie 12:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again in agreement with Stormie. nn as-is, might be if it achieves something, then come back and tell us about it, -mysekurity 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, WP:NOT, etc per Cryptic -Harmil 18:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 08:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -JCarriker 18:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American West

Please delete this article. I am the one who wrote it. I spent several weeks researching the material and organizing it to come up with a barebones outline of an article. I fully intended to expand it but health problems intervened. I never once considered it a controversial subject but have since been accused of bad faith in its creation, my efforts belittled, and I have been lectured rather than asked for sources. In addition the page seems to have become somewhat of a magnet for those pursuing an opinionated rather than a scholarly approach to the subject. I would therefore ask that it be deleted. CPret 11:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a vote going on at Talk:American West, that was leaning towards turing the page into a redirect when this Vfd was posted. -JCarriker 17:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• The result of the above vote on Talk:American West was to redirect American West to Western United States. -JCarriker 01:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Sorry, but just because you created it does not allow you to have the authority to delete it as well. We try not to own our articles. Reasonable article that elaborates about a cultural phenomenon, as opposed to a geographical one. If anything, it has to be fixed, not deleted. -- Natalinasmpf 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - check the talk page as well. -max rspct 15:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a redirect. CPret created the page from a redirect to U.S. West in October, making a duplicate article. The material has now been merged at Western United States. Consensus oin a survey on Talk:American West is for making it back into a redirect. While I regret CPret's decesion to leave his reasons for Vfding the page are not legitimate. -JCarriker 15:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. (BTW, where did that ginormous image in the VfD tag come from? It's not being used in a template anywhere.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see one on my settings at his time. What does it look like? -JCarriker 16:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Delete_Icon.png. It was added to the VfD template for a short time by User:Denelson83 but was quickly changed back. The notice on American West was subst'd in, so the image should still be there... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see you mean the tag on the article. Thanks. -JCarriker 16:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect to Western United States (merge any remaining worthwhile duplicate material). Probably there is no reason to have two articles. If there is—say, one with a more cultural focus—"American West" is not a good title for that more cultural article, it should follow the "Culture of..." pattern. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why would you nominate this for deletion? Redwolf24 18:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems fine to me..? -mysekurity 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Clearly there is a desire for this to become a redirect, and merge work has already been done. per JCarriker -Harmil 18:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Do not redirect. My reasons are on the archived talk page but here's a recap: The American West is the nearly universal name for this region in both academic works and the popular press—that's what most people will be looking for. The American Old West is not a region but a historical era occurring in the American West from about the Civil War through the 1890s. Most of the history of the American West occurred before and after those 30-40 years and continues to this day. Also, to imply, as the Western United States article does, that Hawaii is culturally and historically part of the American West and states like Texas through the Dakotas are not, is simply wrong. And I think there is plenty of evidence to back that up. Also, only with great difficulty can the category system for the American West article which has been built up over time by several contributors be transferred to the Western United States because the articles are defining two different regions using different criteria. I would redirect Western United States to Geography of the Western United States and dab that page. DialUp 19:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Just some notes: Texas and the Dakotas are include in the Western United States article, it's just noted that they are often consider part of the South and Midwest respectfully as well, and thus aren't always include in the West. Also the Geography of the Western United States, does not include Texas and the Dakotas at present. According to Naming conventions adopted by WikiProject U.S. regions, the article should be located at Western United States, which is where the original U.S. West article was moved; all other regions with diretions in their names are located at -ern United States. -JCarriker 19:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this article should be included in the history of the American West. The modern West does NOT include states such as Texas. Not only is geography a distinction but culture and politics as well. In response to DailUp, yes, Hawaii is part of the MODERN West and culturally too. Hawaii has similar legislation, outlooks and demographics to other Western states. Texas is nothing at all like any modern Western states, if you include it in the present West I am prepared to NPOV for original research. Yes, historically Texas WAS part of the West, not anymore. Here are some reasons why: US Census does not include Texas, polls indicate major differences in cultural opinion between Texas and the majority of thr West, ie 48% of southerners against same-sex unions vs. 28% of westerners, Texas restricts the sale of sex toys (there is absolutely nothing like this in any modern western state, in fact Nevada allows prostitution), Texas had a ban on interracial marriage at the time of the 1967 Supreme Court ruling striking it down, no Western state had such a law. Texas TODAY is part of the South, plain and simple. Using your line of thinking we would have to include West Virginia in the American West, when in reality, yes, it was considered Western in the past but not today. Globeism 20:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Uvaduck 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• I have fixed the map and I hope you will agree. The current American West article has major flaws, for example in the past the Great Lakes region was considered Western: Northwest Territory and West Virginia. Globeism 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; just because an article attracts POV pushers is no reason to delete. Kaibabsquirrel 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Uppland 07:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't redirect; name is right. Frank101 04:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Good article.--LavonS

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

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

The result of the debate was

I have speedily deleted this page. Stormie 12:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jazborocketman

Non-notable vanty. Should be deleted and userfied... Gblaz 11:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richview Collegiate Institute

school of dubious significance Joel7687 11:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep on basis of one alumnus who is leader of HM's loyal opposition in Canada. Dunc|☺ 12:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. - SimonP 16:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, improves coverage of education in Etobicoke, and the background of Mr Stephen Harper. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 18:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak cleanup Google says it's real, but less than 500 refs... iffy at best, but no harm in cleaning it up and keeping it.
• Cleanup and expand. I agree with the guy above me ^^ (mr. annonymous) in that there's nothing wrong with keeping it, it just needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard and blah blah blah. -mysekurity 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — if vote is to delete, merge into Toronto District School Board — RJH 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle. --Carnildo 21:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent is that schools are notable. My condolences for producing Mr. Harper. Dcarrano 23:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable of course. CalJW 02:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if only because of Stephen Harper. Xoloz 09:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've cleaned and expanded a little. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa and DoubleBlue. Unfocused 17:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please doubleblue is right Yuckfoo 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. To me, all school articles look basicly the same, but like Wikipedia says, they're not going to go away. ·Zhatt· 22:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle as per Carnildo. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article could well become interesting and notable with some tender loving research. -Joshuapaquin 03:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge to Toronto District School Board

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furshampoo

The only thing this article gets right is that Fursuits should be washed by hand, and not be put in a washing machine. Everything else is pure nonsense. As the google test obviously shows, there is no such thing as "Furshampoo", and I'm not sure if the article is just an act of trolling.. --Conti|✉ 13:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I personally use this. I'm sorry that you were looking to use it personally and were unable to find it.
• I don't know why you can't find it. Here are links (the first proves furry community relations and the others are where to find and buy it): [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] It originated in France so it may use a French name. Chunitaku 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, yeah... a link to a furry sex story where the word "shampoo" is used and four links to shampoo for real animals don't prove anything. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. JimRaynor 14:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is also not a junkyard (Jni) -mysekurity 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this is a sockpuppet of Chunitaku. He came back after a week absence to do a few minor edits and to vote here. He has also voted on another VfD on which Chunitaku voted. And looking at their contributions, they never edited at the same time, although they edited at the same day when they both voted on the VfDs. --Conti|✉ 22:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • He also accused me of stalking when I listed his userpage at redirects for deletion, something that is patently untrue. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with this user. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I humbly ask that ContiE take the following into consideration....

Then (1) Android79 (text search: 01DTALKEMAIL), (2) Mysekurity, (3) Harmil, (4) Dcarrano, (5) Almafeta are all one person's sockpuppets. I have numbered them to make it easier to type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Richfield_Senior_High_School: 1, 2, 4, 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/I_Felta_Thi: 1, 2, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/John_Daker: 1, 2, 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/American_West: 1, 2, 3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Fat_People_on_Television: 1, 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dinosaurs:_A_Creationist%27s_Faulty_View.: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Joseph_E._Duncan_III: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Greater_Vancouver_Bridges: 1, 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/KarlScherersGreatestHits: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Semi-Christian_metal_bands: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_songs_that_begin_with_non-music: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_Magic_Dudes: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cardboardia: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Fucked_Company: 1, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/David_tunney: 1, 2, 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/911_horoscope: 1, 3, 4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Victor_augusto_nieto_righetti: 1, 2. I've also noticed Etacar11 in many of them, too.

I stopped at the end of the last 4 days. I hope you will listen to me, Conti E. JimRaynor 15:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• As for my part in the accusation, I've only ever heard of Android79 around here, and that's because we're both part of WP:PAC. Accusing the rest of being sockuppets because you found they had sometimes voted in acordance with Android79 is really reaching... this silliness should stop now. Almafeta 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Voting on the same VfD as another person does not make me suspicious yet. It only did in combination with the other points I said, which you for some reason just ignored. Oh, and thanks to suddenly vote the opposite of every VfD I voted in. --Conti|✉ 18:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I guess I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here's evidence to the contrary: vote opposite Mysekurity and Harmil, vote opposite Almafeta, vote opposite Dcarrano, vote opposite Etacar11. If I'm a sockpuppet, I'm not a very good one. Please stop with the silly accusations. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, likely hoax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete goonn, possible hoax -Harmil 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Fur Expert 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Sockpuppet who hopes that people will always vote the opposite of what obvious sockpuppets vote. --Conti|✉ 18:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Sorry sockpuppet, I'm voting against you on this. -mysekurity 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete anything and everything to do with furries! SchmuckyTheCat 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't resist voting with a sockpuppet. Still needs to be strangled slowly and publicly, however. As for my reasoning: WP:NOT a furball. -Splash 22:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 23:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn at best, probably hoax. --Etacar11 02:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only because in trying to figure out if it's real or not, I discovered a [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furshampoo page about it here]. I just think that somewhere wikipedia should dispell the statements on that other wiki. But if not, then let's delete our furry article, too, and send everyone to that site for [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furry their furry article]. Well, that's my only reasoning. I think someone should prove it a hoax if it is instead of speculating or I'll be wondering forever. SnowConeYellow 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As I wrote on Talk:Furry fandom, encyclopedia dramatica can't be taken seriously, so this is more or less the proof that the article is a hoax. Which means that User:Chunitaku is nothing more than bored troll. --Conti|✉ 16:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified, evidence of trolling from ED. Almafeta 21:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with fursuit, shampoo, or Care of living organisms. The person who started this page for deletion said, "The only thing this article gets right is that Fursuits should be washed by hand, and not be put in a washing machine." I don't know how I should vote on this since am unknowledable on the subject. According to fursuit, the suits sound handmade from living ingredients (once living) so , well what does everyone clean their fursuit with? Drycleaning won't work, too? Handwash? Shampoo or soap or another cleaner? Are fursuits colorfast? ChoobWriter 14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for your illumination, fursuits aren't made with once-living ingredients. They're made with synthetic fur, or rarely, latex or fabric. Almafeta 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fursuits can be washed or cleaned in a variety of ways, but there is no special "Furshampoo". Contrary to popular belief, it's not always impossible to put fursuits into a washing machine; if you use a low temperature and put it on the "wool" setting, you should be OK most of the time, even though hand-washing is still better, of course. Laundry detergents or shampoo (no matter whether human or pet shampoo) should probably not be used, but Woollite can be; additionally, many people will use Febreze on their fursuits (although that is only a short-term solution when you can't wash a suit right away, of course). In any case, you should NEVER put a fursuit into a dryer, as the heat will damage the fur fibers; instead, gently wring it out and then hang it and let it dry. Hope this helps, in case you ever want to get a fursuit. ^_~ Oh, and BTW, as far as colour fastness is concerned, that really depends on the fur used. Regular fur that's bought from a store is probably safe in this regard, but if you dye yourself or use airbrush to put accents on the suit, then you probably shouldn't count on it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete extremely non-notable at best, likely a hoax. carmeld1 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - there is no such thing as "Furshampoo", unless you're referring to pet shampoo that you can buy in pet stores (but which shouldn't be used on artificial fur). This is a hoax. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense, no hits on Google for Furshampoo. The closest I could find is Plush Cleaner, like Bubble Gund -- RainR 23:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - zero Google hits is a pretty strong case for non-notablity, even if it weren't a hoax to begin with. Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Nova ELC

Not notable bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 13:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Decius 13:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to notability for minor business. -Harmil 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and not enough to keep. Out it goes -mysekurity 18:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Europeanisation

POV, original research, personal essay - I've asked for citations but they have not been forthcoming. Topic may deserve an article, but this is not it --Doc (?) 13:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (potentially hopelessly) POV, vague term, nn theory, original research -Harmil 18:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete use of first person (in addition to above stated reasons), thus: gone -mysekurity 19:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People are everywhere

Probably a candidate for speedy, but more transparency is better. Imdb for the director Alex Loris and for the title come up empty as does google for the title + director. Aaron Brenneman 13:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed. —Cleared as filed. 18:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Aaron Brenneman -Harmil 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV ("stupid") and weird capitalization.... -mysekurity 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete really. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted after information merge. FCYTravis 06:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Konstantynopolitańczykowianeczka

Foreign dictionary reference, "longest word in Polish". Aaron Brenneman 13:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly the reverse of the way that this information should be presented in an encyclopaedia, since it requires the reader to already know the information in order to even find it. Rename to Polish words with uncommon properties in order to parallel English words with uncommon properties. Uncle G 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename--Witkacy 14:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with some other article as per Uncle G. On its own, it's not noteworthy (for English WP at least, and only because it's supposedly the longest word in Polish, is it likely noteworthy in pl:WP). Tomer ^TALK 15:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As is, there is no way to verify this potentially original research, though it is listed as part of a famous tongue twister on wikiquote. -Harmil 18:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - foreign dicdef, but maybe it deserves to be in some long word list or the "polish words with uncommon properties", as stated above. -mysekurity 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've expanded the article to duplicate the style of English words with uncommon properties. The article is now a {{lang-stub}} ready to be renamed if that is the consensus. Uncle G 00:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 08:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Uncle G. Xoloz 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but merge info to Polish_language#Vocabulary - Nabla 04:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I, boldly, did it... Nabla 04:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I move to speed up the VfD (regardless of the fact that I have no doubt that my motion will not be taken up, especially since it's now well-past the relevant period for a speedy.  :-p )... Tomer ^TALK 09:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misty Horizon

Delete - standard nn band vanity. TheMidnighters 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "Misty Horizon is still a very new band. They have not even played anywhere", nn, vanity -Harmil 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Less than a week old, and they only play birthday parties. Pburka 18:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "They have not even played anywhere", as such, it's, as TheMidnighters sugguested, "standard nn band vanity". Agreed. -mysekurity 19:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity, yes. They are starting early here. --Etacar11 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emehleugh

Delete - vanity. TheMidnighters 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete goonn, vanity -Harmil 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - typical nn vanity. Out it goes -mysekurity 19:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CleerSteel

Appears to be a hoax. No google hits, and no patents of the given numbers appear to exist. 24.156.86.181 15:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it now. A thread on Allspark.com, (http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76240&st=20#) has the person who created it admitting it's a hoax. -awa64
• Delete External statements are not verifiable, however I think we can safely vote delete based on: a patent number search shows up no valid patents for those numbers and Midaco does not claim any such invention on their site. -Harmil 18:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, good research, guys. Safe to be deleted, I guess. -mysekurity 19:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD✉ 21:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Port Hope Simpson

Nothing but spam links to blogspot pages. No factual information about the place.--Alsocal 15:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oit's a copyvio from [23] #Dunc|☺ 16:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup copyvio should be deleted, and then page re-created in reference to real place details are available -Harmil 18:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup as sugguested by Harmil. -mysekurity 19:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prevette Landscaping

Delete nn or vanity. A private landscaping firm. TheMidnighters 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; nn, 3 google results. [24] Jaxl 17:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad, nn, vanity. Article claims non-notability -Harmil 17:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity, spam, the works. In agreement with Harmil. -mysekurity 19:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and possibly merge to Big Brother UK series 6. Eliot 16:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kemal Shahin

Not a notable person. Winning one of the countless Big Brother series on that exist on every continent barring Antarctica would barely merit entry, simply being a contestant clearly does not. Aaron Brenneman 16:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Big Brother 6 (UK) Contestants or something. No use by itself -mysekurity 19:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Aaron Brenneman. Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. Dcarrano 03:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable contestant. JamesBurns 08:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE Kemal is an interesting contestant and deserves to be mentioned - at the very least!
• Keep for the time being - he may yet win, or become a minor celebrity after the show - if not, he'll be deleteworthy then. Why remove the article right now to possibly be created later? We're not going to run out of space in the time being. --Drw25 21:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, he is a current contestant on one of the most popular shows currently on British television. He has assumed a wide following and is often discussed in popular british culture. He may not be notable in a few months, but the several million followers of BB6 (claim based upon: viewing figures, vote counts and website hits) no doubt feel he is worthy of an entry at this stage. Oliver Keenan 16:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Absolutely, and a redirect would accommodate those searching for him. The current content, however, is not encyclopaedic enough for a solo article, before or after the series ends. The JPS 01:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until the end of the series. After that (if he doesn't win), merge into the main article. --Sanguinus 01:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Sanguinus... keep until the end of the series and if he doesn't win then Merge and Redirect into the main articlePhantomsteve 19:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 until enough can be written about him to warrant a solo article. Even if he does win, this article would only repeat what it says in the main BB6 article anyway. An example of a former BB contestant who warrants an article is Brian Dowling: slightly more encyclopaedic than who he's friends with and who has thrown a glass of water over him. Leaving it as it is will just encourage similar articles. The JPS 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per The JPS. Nabla 04:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an important person to the British at the moment and there is no doubt that if this situation was in America (with such a high percent of the population keeping a track of his actions every day) that it would be kept. --195.92.168.169 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wait 6 months to see what happens. He is notable as being a transvestite of sorts from a Muslim background. Time will tell whether he becomes a minor celebrity or not. 81.155.2.146 01:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Kemal is still likely to win so for the time being this article should be kept.
• Redirect all of them except Derek Laud who was a known political figure before becoming a contestant and I imagine will be again afterwards. There is nothing notable about any of the rest. Mrsteviec 11:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite, and redirect. This article is mostly POV, hidden by weak, unproven phrases such as 'some people' or 'many consider that'. IINAG 15:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - He is known all over the UK!!

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stockport cricket club

not notable. Also follows Geogre's rule. Dunc|☺ 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no claim to notability, and goonn -Harmil 17:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As notable as schools and as these articles: Oxford University Walking Club Lancaster City F.C., Leigh RMI F.C. & Holker Old Boys F.C.. (What is Geogre's rule?) -- RHaworth 18:57, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
  • Comment the semi-professional conference-level football teams are notable, the walking club is now on vfd. Local cricket clubs are, like you say, are probably as notable as a primary schools and donut shops. Hence they should be deleted to avoid this place filling with crap. Dunc|☺ 20:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Geogre's rule is something to do with newbies not knowing that wikipedia's search is case-sensitive. Kappa 19:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Geogre's Law. Uncle G 01:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Is it bad that I saw the pronoun in that glossary entry and knew you had written it? -- Jonel | Speak 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per RHaworth. Kappa 19:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, at the very least should be cleaned up (peacock term). Add a claim to notability, then my vote will change to keep, but until then, I'm sticking with delete. -mysekurity 19:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a cricket club. It needs a good cleanup. And someone should perhaps teach the author Geogre's rule how to use the Page Move facility. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Geogre's Law notes correlation and would probably do quite well in empirical testing of incidences. Just because uncapitalized terms are not always non-notable doesn't mean the observation is incorrect. -- Jonel | Speak 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless cleaned to become notable and NPOV. If it is, I'll change but this is the kind of thing that survives a VfD and then sits there not going anywhere. -Splash 22:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, much more comparable to a local business than to a school. Dcarrano 23:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep... I guess... I don't think it's particularly important, but I don't really think it needs deleting! --Deskana 00:48, 11th July 2005 (GMT)
• Keep No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover this sort of thing. CalJW 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cricket clubs are inherently notable. -- Jonel | Speak 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Radiant_>|< 15:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above, no reason for this sort of thing to not be in Wikipedia Robdurbar 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. carmeld1 21:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very bad and i am the creator of it. if deleted it would not bother me and i would try to improve on a new version. Jimmyb
• Delete, notability not established. - Nabla 04:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jam (computers)

Advertising-- BMIComp (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising --InformationalAnarchist 17:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad, vanity, nn, standard stuff here. -mysekurity 19:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Advertising, does not try to assert any encylopedic material. Should be deleted on the spot. -- Natalinasmpf 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Story So Far, The

Delete, nn band vanity and looks like copyvio. 9 Google hits for "The Story So Far" + "Jon Maguire". Wikipedia is not a webspace provider.Idont Havaname 17:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC See below for new vote. --Idont Havaname 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Idont Havaname is right, in that this is typical nn band vanity and even bits of ad in it. Good job for displaying that link. -mysekurity 19:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - for reasons above. --TheMidnighters 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jaxl 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep entry on allmusic.com. Needs cleanup, if kept, though. That pic has got to go. --Etacar11 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*Comment. This article also exists at Story So Far. That article has been here since March but is about the same band. Their most recent edits are by the same editor, and the articles look very similar. Should that be listed in this VfD too? --Idont Havaname 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment again. Story So Far is an attempt at a disambiguation page. Remove the contents about the band from that page. There's no need for a redirect since the title of this page is not in correct Wikipedia style. Question though: what is the correct title of the spunge album - is it Story So Far, or The Story So Far? One of those should redirect to whichever one is right. --Idont Havaname 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Ortiz

Yet another vanity page. Joyous (talk) 18:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. So completely non-notable that it's hardly worth the time to vote to delete. Fur Expert 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 18:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — n-n/vanity — RJH 18:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as sockpuppet stated, its not worth anyone's time, and should be taken care of speedily -mysekurity 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly vanity. --Etacar11 02:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casa del Vento

The content is a redirect to iftself Xrm0 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Couldn't these self-referencing pages be caught by an automated tool? Just wondering. Was there anything in the history? Maybe it had content that was expunged. :) — RJH 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• looks like it was caught by said tool. No vote from me :) -mysekurity 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. No meaningful history/redir to redlink target that was deleted as copyvio in March. Niteowlneils 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete again -- Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PythonMOO

Rework of a previously deleted page (previous VfD here). Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material was protested by the website's creator. Still appears to be a webpage of little to no notoriety. --Allen3 ^talk 00:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --pippo2001 01:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Big Sigh. OK, I'll play along with this. The claim is that this version is significantly different from the previous version. My recollection is that it's pretty much the same, but the original is gone from view of non-admin eyes so I can't say for sure. Could some admin please do a temporary restore of the original someplace so we can compare them? --RoySmith 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The most recent version from before the original deletion has been restored, and may be viewed in the article's revision history. The primary difference is the About section in the new versions. --Allen3 ^talk 09:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MOOve along, nothing to see here. Hamster Sandwich 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - My head is spinning... <(o_o)> ... UniReb 06:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. The content is essentially the same; the only difference was the middle paragraph which was filled with obvious trivia (e.g. that you can use either a regular or a special telnet client to connect to it). Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as broken redirect. --Allen3 ^talk 17:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glosa Language

The article is only a redirect to 'Glosa language' (the article doesn't exist) and no articles links to 'Glosa Language' Xrm0 18:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non existant redirect, deal with it accordingly. -mysekurity 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• YOU CAN'T VOTE ON REDIRECTS AT VFD. This must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion - template is {{rfd}}. ~~~~ 20:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually it's speedyable as a broken redirect. --Dmcdevit·t 00:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk 17:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Saskatchewan License Plates

I live in Saskatchewan and have a few plates. I thought there would be some content, but all that is on this page is a picture and a list of dates. It needs to be worked on or gotten rid of, since it doesn't seem right that it is there with no real content for about a month. Did the creator abandon it? Borox 18:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No real use (unencyclopedic), and unfilled, I think it deserves some other place. -mysekurity 20:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how a list of sequential dates and a single picture is encyclopedic. Zhatt 20:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 21:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems to be from the same series as Historical North Carolina License Plates and Historical Mississippi License Plates which recently survived a VfD. Pburka 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a stub, otherwise the people who are into license plates are going to just have a red link in the articles as they create them. Staleness isn't a reason to delete. SchmuckyTheCat 22:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per what Pburka said. This is part of a series which should eventually include all US states and Canadian provinces. I should also point out that the "user" who nominated this for a VFD created their account on 10 July and nominated this article for VFD 22 minutes afater they created their account. This VFD should be considered an invalid nomination. Kaibabsquirrel 01:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Pburka. 23skidoo 02:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all of the platecruft. -- Jonel | Speak 04:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Pburka. This project can be expanded to other countries too. — Instantnood 07:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep License plates have some historical and cultural value.--Simon.Pole 07:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kaibabsquirrel. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to delete. I'm inclined to agree with Nabla below. There should be some attempt at a written article here, like Historical Mississippi License Plates has, rather than just posting an image. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I know the others have survived VfD, and likely this will too, but I honestly don't see how this can be very encyclopedic, sorry. OTOH, if this article were to actually describe, in text, some of the more original plate designs, I'd consider changing my vote. --Deathphoenix 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no content other than the title. Let the red links stand. Nabla 04:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delte --Allen3 ^talk 17:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome Ben Aoues

Not notable. Should have been a speedy. -- RHaworth 18:44, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy. Certainly nonsense, perhaps patent nonsense. Pburka 19:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn. The new article is no longer nonsense and appears to be verifiable. No comment on notability. Pburka 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy stupid nonsense, that is. -mysekurity 20:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nonsense. --Etacar11 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Retain as this type of extreme sport requires extreme talent and he has been featured on BBC and elsewhere. There may be a personal reason that the above individuals wish to have his page deleted. SKM (Unsigned vote by 195.229.241.187)

• Comment The article is greatly improved from the nonsense it originally was, but still, to me, he isn't above the bar of notability. So my vote stays the same. --Etacar11 14:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grail Movement

Delete Looks like nonsense to me, but maybe there's something there. You decide. Icelight 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Possibly nonsense. I'd say it's nn. Google returns ~500 results though. -- BMIComp (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. -- RHaworth 06:19, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

• Delete. the guy before me (annon) deleted his smart comment, but maybe it should be included in an article about the killings. -mysekurity 20:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incomprehensible, context-free nonsense. -EDM 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and merge to Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa Eliot 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lilia Alejandra Andrade

• Delete 20 deaths this year? not to be disrespectful to the dead, but this particluar one doesn't seem that notable. Perhaps she should be included in a main article about the killings?
• Merge and redirect to the article about the organisation, Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa, which gets about 7,820 Google hits. Uppland 10:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per User:Uppland. JamesBurns 04:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and merge to Beneath a Steel Sky. Eliot 17:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Foster

I was going to redirect this - but I can't see how a character in a point-and-click game merits a redirect much less his own page - so delete please --Doc (?) 19:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect with Beneath a Steel Sky. -mysekurity 20:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bob Foster. Champion boxer is more notable than a video game character. Pburka 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Beneath a Steel Sky, and disambig (Beneath a Steel Sky, Bob Foster, Robert Forster). Dcarrano 23:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beneath a Steel Sky, very little if anything to merge. JamesBurns 08:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fat People on Television

Listcruft - totally subjective: who is to be considered fat? Who is on TV? I know 'Elvis lives' - but his TV appearances are few --Doc (?) 20:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Subjective, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is this "article" some kind of joke? Gwk 20:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Entirely subjective. I notice it even includes someone considered "formerly fat." Joyous (talk) 20:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; subjective. Jaxl 21:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who writes this crap? -R. fiend 21:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uvaduck 21:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, subjective, unencyclopedic, unneccisary. need I go on? -mysekurity 21:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and block the people responsible. Gamaliel 21:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to block really... but del the page. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous rubbish. Amusing that this article exists. DarthVader 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subjective and unencyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because they forgot to cite Camryn Manheim and Alison Sweeney (teen years only). Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, unencyclopedic and intellectually pathetic. Also lacks a proper, established criteria of what "fat" is. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

Speedied — Gwalla | Talk 00:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Little april

Porn ad. Joyous (talk) 20:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm fairly sure this sort of thing falls under Speedy Deletion. Gwk 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn and ad. Gwk may be right, so it could go to speedy if need-be. -mysekurity 21:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. Advert, just an excuse for an external link. — Gwalla | Talk 00:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reddish Vale Technology College

From the same stable as Stockport cricket club, a school, which - wait for it - has pupils, teachers, and even an email address. Dunc|☺ 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Wikify A curate's egg 21:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ahh the humor from Dunc, good one. It appears poorly written, so at the very least could use a cleanup, but shows no signs of notability. If Brookie (A curate's egg) could provide a reason for the keep vote, I might feel differently, but I see no reason why it should stay. -mysekurity 21:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable school. Can we stop nominating schools now? They all survive VfD. Pburka 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough subject, article in need of work without a doubt. Comment: article was very first article created by a new user who, with a bit of encouragement, has actually done some good work on it, albeit with much more to do. Look at the article history to see. It would be a shame to discourage him/her with a deletion unless it was very clearly obvious why. Naturenet | Talk 22:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent is that schools are notable. Dcarrano 23:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia should aim for comprehensive coverage of education, as with geography and mineralogy. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Pburka. Xoloz 09:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shazbot. Gamaliel 15:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Unfocused 17:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Fish. As above. --Carnildo 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  •  :) We've crossed a new surrealist frontier in voting here. Xoloz 21:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please cleanup too even though this is not supposed to be a cleanup page Yuckfoo 22:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle as per the existing Wikipedia consensus on these type of articles. —RaD Man (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. just another school. The school has contributed to many childs lives by giving them a good start in their lives with good discipline and educational oppurtunities... Quite the opposite of every other school, right? - Nabla 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied (blanked by author) — Gwalla | Talk 00:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Felta Thi, Eric Salopek

Delete. Either a hoax article or a joke fraternity. (Say the name out loud if you don't get it.) 58 unique Googles, none of which appear to be relevant to this joke fraternity. "i felta thi" penn state garners just one hit to a blog where the frat is mentioned in passing. Even if this fraternity does exist, local chapters of a fraternity without at least a national membership are not notable enough for inclusion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added Eric Salopek to this vfd - no indicia of notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete that article as well. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Real Group This fraternity is a true organization created by myself and others at Penn State University. No we do not have national membership, but I do not see how this pertains to being notable enough for inclusion. We are not technically a "fraternity" which is why we do not have a national membership. We are a club who calls themselves a fraternity in order to portray the ideals of brotherhood and comradery that we believe in. There are hundreds of articles on this site which do not serve any purpose or have any realistic background and yet they remain. The reason they stay is that there is a demand for the information provided. This article was added recently (today) and is not yet completed with all of the information which we are attempting to portray to others. We are not technically a "fraternity", but we are however a recognized club at the University as are many other clubs ranging from "Halo lovers" to "People who have the name Mike." Yes our name is a play on words and is meant to be humorous, but this in no way discredits our organization or its goals. We developed the group as a place to interact with others at college. We take in at least 20 new members each semester and hope that they continue the tradition when we graduate.
  • ^{Above comment is by Cousin; new account, fewer than 50 edits, virtually all of which are to this article and to Eric Salopek. -- BD2412 talk 21:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{So, it's not even a real fraternity, but a student club. If this is merged into Penn State, it needs to be drastically condensed, as there are over 600 student clubs at that university. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)}
    • ^{Further correction: it appears to be an unofficial, unrecognized student club. All of the links here make no mention of I Felta Thi. (I say appears because I was unable to check the student club lists for a number of the PSU campuses because there are broken links in that list.) Given the complete lack of relevant Google hits, it is increasingly likely that this is a hoax. If it is not, it is an unofficial student club – that is, a group of guys at a college. There is no verifiable information about this supposed club that I have been able to find. Utterly unencyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Merge I Felta Thi into Penn State. Not independently notable, even if it does exist. Delete Eric Salopek, no indicia of notability. -- BD2412 talk 20:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)}
  • Change of vote. Delete both, as the former is not verifiable. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Old frat joke, just like Tappa Kegga Dae. -R. fiend 21:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Give me a break, that joke was old when I was in school. If you're going to waste our time, at least try and be original, please? RoySmith 21:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge as this is almost certainly a hoax. Gamaliel 21:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above reasons. Neither are notable and both appear to be vanity. Good point about the 600 clubs, and as such, a "list of clubs at Penn State" would not be needed. No real purpose for it here. A sugguestion for Cousin; Try geocities or maybe the Penn State website if you want your Fraternity to be known. Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a junkyard (Jni) -mysekurity 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Almost certainly a hoax? If those of you who are attending Penn State Univeristy at this moment and are a part of this organization would please stand up. That's what I thought. As for those of you who feel the need to destroy every page that appears on wikipedia that you do not find important enough for your time please heed these words ... stop wasting your time. This is not a joke. This is a true organization. Merging it into Penn State would simply have it get lost among the hundreds of articles and topics that are available there. Deleting it means that your idea of information is better than someone elses. Wikipedia is a place for people to find information. Free information. Who was the person that gave you the power to deem information unimportant and not independently notable 20 minutes after the first draft of text has been uploaded. If you feel the need to delete this page and feel that my attempt at educating people about our organization and efforts are not notable of inclusion in the world of wikipedia then fine. But at least give people like myself and others a chance to provide the information that is desired before attacking us with these deletion attempts. If after this you still feel that my page does not deserve to be placed on wikipedia alongside articles dealing with "credible" information such as the detailed inner workings of a blaster rifle from star wars or other such pages that specifically state that their information is fictional then fine. I have no control over what you do. But if fictional information and hoaxes are what you are after, then I suggest you look elsewhere because I am only concerned with informing people about our organization. --Cousin
  • Not only is blanking user pages not cool, it's not even original (see above). Yawn. RoySmith 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And that would make calling new users unoriginal and deleting their first additions to wikipedia "cool"? Yawn. --Cousin
      • No, it would make you a vandal. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a free web host. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. (Yes, information about Star Wars and the like is verifiable. This is not.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • So instead of partaking in activities that might make use of your somewhat terrifying ability to research topics that you don't believe are real in the first place you attack "unverifiable topics" from wikipedia and new users in your free time? --Cousin
      • It's not "attacking." It's janitorial work, which I do in addition to contributing my own content. And if no one did this, Wikipedia would quickly become an unusable heap of junk. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • Could you provide some examples of content that you contribute so that I may scrutinize every detail of your words as severely as you have done to mine? --Cousin
          • I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what I've done here, but go right ahead. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it's a real student club, there's no evidence of notability. Friday 22:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn semi-ad, and possibly not even real, since not verifiable.-Splash 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Android you seem to enjoy arguing for the deletion of "hoaxes" such as schools and bridges as well as college clubs that you dont feel are important enough for your time. And as for the topic of notability, many things are not notable. An apple is just an apple, nothing too notable there yet it gets quite a lengthy page for itself (probably not done in the first 10 minutes of its creation either). You "Wikipedians" may need to choose some new terms in order to argue for the deletion of pages. User profiles aren't too notable or verifiable (cite your sources for your personal information please), yet they get space on the site just like anything else.

• The power of annoyance perseveres. Thanks to an apparent unrelenting stream of people sitting at home with nothing better to do than worry about whether or not my organization is real, I'm taking down the information for both of my entries so far. Feel free to do whatever you like. Delete the entries through whatever process necessary. However please remember that patience is a virtue. In the future be more accepting of ideas and allow them a day or two to develop before tagging them for deletion. Verifiable does not just mean that you can Google it. There were times when things such as books, magazines, and newspapers determined what was verifiable. Apparently some of you have forgotten those days. Just because you can't find it in 5 minutes on a site like Google doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just because some of you have no lives and apparently also have enormous sticks shoved in orifices I choose not to mention at this time does not mean that the rest of must suffer the pains of your scrutiny. In addition I suggest some of you (Android79 and RoySmith particularly) look into joining another club of mine. It's called FA-Q (Say the name out loud if you don't get it Android.) --Cousin
• Strong delete on both, not notable, not verifiable, abusive user. Dcarrano 23:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn per Cousin - Thatdog 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. Cousin was so kind as to blank both pages. — Gwalla | Talk 00:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Woohookitty 06:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Jesus

Article predominantly duplicates New Testament view on Jesus' life (and other articles about the views of various religious denominations and groups own views) and is also inherently POV (partly due to the title).

• Delete ~~~~ 20:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 26 articles link to Historical Jesus, not counting forks and talk pages. Unless you plan to do a massive reorganization of all of the articles about Jesus, this one should be left. It's also not clear to me how the title is POV. Pburka 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The article title is POV because it essentially says "this is the real version of jesus", which many many religious groups are going to dispute. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's only linked to as much as it is because someone stuck it in a template. -Sean Curtin 06:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the template. Thanks for pointing that out. I have withdrawn my vote. Pburka 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - As much as they're all redundancies, I'm in agreement with Pburka. You can't just fit all into one article about Jesus, and though this article needs to be re-thought, it doesn't need to be deleted. -mysekurity 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't all fit into Jesus, but that isn't why I put this up for VfD. I put it up for VfD because it is virtually identical to New Testament view on Jesus' life.

• Keep - Wikipedia has plenty of room for several interpretations of Jesus which could not all fit into one article. -Acjelen 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but this is the same interpretation as at New Testament view on Jesus' life, only with a POV title. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to change my vote to Redirect. New Testament view on Jesus' life and Historicity of Jesus cover the necessary material. As a librarian, I can attest that "historical Jesus" is a frequently seen term, but WP must be careful with articles that are about terms rather than about what the term signifies. If historical Jesus research deserves an article outside of Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, then it should be titled Historical Jesus research. -Acjelen 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep 'Historical Jesus' is the accepted accademic title for Jesus reconstructions - if there are duplications elsewhere i'd suggest merging them here. --Doc (?) 21:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Why merge to here? The other article is New Testament view on Jesus' life, which is a more honest title. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Not so, the New Testament's view of Jesus, and the actual historical reality are at least arguably divergent. There are certainly plenty of Jesus schollars who would reconstruct Jesus differently from the Jesus offered by the gospels. As I say, 'Historical Jesus' research is the accepted accademic heading for all such work, and is not neccessarily identical to interpretations of the gospels. --Doc (?) 22:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree they are definitely divergent, but the problem is that the articles are not, but instead are really little more than duplicates of each other. This is why I have put it up for VfD. ~~~~ 23:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and start overKeep. The phrase "historical Jesus" is absolutely significant is used quite frequently in academic circles to refer verifiable historical evidence (or lack thereof) for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It needs some work; I would argue that very little of the article in its current form actually deals with the "historical Jesus", but the article space should stay. Fernando Rizo 22:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The topic is significant but seeing as how the article has almost no salvageable material, it needs re-writing. Fernando Rizo 20:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think that little of its current form actually aproaches the title, could you vote delete, so that we can restart the article from scratch? ~~~~ 23:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that "Historical Jesus" is a term widely accepted and used and should have space for it's story. However, this article does little to create the story of "Historical Jesus" and the roots of it's movement and beginnings. Further the article is begun with "This article presents a critical reconstruction..." I suggest a more encyclopedic approach to the "Historical Jesus." Rewrite and keep User:Jpmizell 10 July 2005

User has 15 prior edits ~~~~ 17:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I never knew about the Gospel of Thomas. After watching the movie Stigmata this afternoon, I became curious to find out more about this fifth gospel. There are a few references to "historical Jesus" in the movie, so I also wanted to find out how "historical" Jesus differs from plain old regular Jesus. User:Anonymous 03:42, 11 July 2005 (EDT)

Falsely signed edit by User:24.59.1.160, who has ZERO prior edits ~~~~ 08:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This VfD is not about an article on "how the historical jesus is different", the point is that the article implies it is the same, i.e. is essentially just a copy.

• Delete unless rewritten. Present article is subjective and opinionated. JamesBurns 08:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Term is commonly used, per Doc. Xoloz 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, I agree with the reasoning of Christopher Parham, given below, and reaffirm my vote, including the suggested cleanup. Xoloz 03:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant fork, POV title. Merge into New Testament view on Jesus' life and Historicity of Jesus where relevant, and redirect to the latter. -Sean Curtin 06:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I have no wish to defend the contents of this article - but the title is valid and quite distinct from those mentioned above. 'The Historical Jesus' is a regular academic title for Jesus reconstructions and even university courses - it is used by believers and revisionists alike (it asks what 'was Jesus really about' and may or may not conclude that this is the same as the NT's view). There is a whole history of scholarship here which could neutrally be recorded in an article. The question of the 'Historicity of Jesus' ('did he exist') is actually seldom debated in mainstream scholarship - and so to merge the mainstream into a peripheral discussion would be POV. --Doc (?) 12:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the content which is being VFD'd. Historicity does not concern did he exist but did he exist in the manner in which is described, i.e. did Jesus exist? and if not, was there someone by the same name? ~~~~ 17:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, this article is rubbish. It says it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus" - well that has no place in an encyclopaedia, as it will always be POV. What, IMHO, should be here is a record of the various critical reconstructions that scholarship has offered over the last 200 years. Not 'did Jesus exist?', but 'what kind of Jesus existed?'. I've simply been arguing that this title deserves an article. I understood Vfd was not the place for articles that had content problems, but for articles that shouldn't exist (that may be a moot point). If this is deleted, I'm willing to write/help a new scholarly article. If it is kept, I'll (help) re-write it - but either solution may take me some time. --Doc (?) 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup This is certainly no redundant fork. Important term widely used. Look at the number of books at Amazon.com that have the term in the title. Properly written, the article would be entirely different in perspective from that of New Testament view on Jesus' life and thus highly valuable. carmeld1 00:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And what of the current content? Should it be deleted or kept? ~~~~ 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup Despite POV, this article has some definite possibilities. -Tydaj 04:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(again) What of the current content? Should it be deleted or kept? ~~~~ 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is good. Childhood and family background needs a lot more than just Biblical reference. One thing I know of is that there is some belief that "Doubting" Thomas was Jesus' twin. It should also mention his name was probably Yeshua (Joshua), but that "Jesus" derives from the Greek transcription "Iesou" (Greek having no equivalent of our "Y" sound, /j/ in IPA). It mentions this briefly toward the end, but this should really be at the beginning of the article. Works and miracles is a bit better about using extra-Biblical info (altho there's some stuff there that doesnt belong in that category). The last two sections are basiclly just rehashing the Biblical account without giving much outside info. Also, it mentions in passing the belief that Jesus was not a historical figure, but doesn't really expound upon it. Something else: I've heard that some scholars think that Nazareth was founded (I believe) around 70 BCE, therefore, as the Nazareth article says, "Such historians argue that Iesou Nazarene was not 'from Nazareth', but rather that his title was 'Nazarene.'" -Tydaj 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Other stuff: The article opens, "This article presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels. Other related articles present different descriptions and perspectives of Jesus. The problem is that it should include other material and perspectives than orthodox Christian (whatever that is). Does anybody know where these supposed other articles are? Perhaps a merge may be in order -Tydaj 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Basically, that is my point - the article explicitely states it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels". I.e. is a POV fork of New Testament view on Jesus' life.

Christian views are already discussed at Religious perspectives on Jesus, and whether he really existed, and/or was similar to the biblical description, is at Historicity of Jesus.

So the only thing suitable is to delete it. ~~~~ 17:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking at all the other articles I see what you mean. I don't know much about scholarly approaches to the figure of Jesus, so if the term Historical Jesus really is important, then it should probably be mentioned in Historicity of Jesus. But for now, out of ignorance I shall abstain. -Tydaj 15:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. I was looking for this exact term, but the kind of information I wanted was actually in Historicity of Jesus-~~~~ 20:08, 14

FALSELY SIGNED VOTE. Above user is actually 170.61.20.228 and neither -Kingsley- nor me. ~~~~ 20:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. The historicity of a figure and his personal history are two different topics and can be discussed at different pages. As it stands, it appears that the Historicity of Jesus article mostly focuses on sources, which seems reasonable. A biographical-type article, which should exist here, also seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Merge whatever really is historical to Jesus and Redirect. The main article Jesus is (or must be) about the 'historical' Jesus. Any other POV (including the Christian) should be named as such, as there are obviously several POVs on the subject and thay will not fit all in one article. Nabla 04:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Life of Jesus or similar. Certainly Jesus is important enough to warrant multiple articles with similar content, and I can see the flow of the two is differentiated, but these two (this and Historicity of Jesus) have confusingly similar names. So I propose a name change of some sort. Garrett^Talk 10:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and Cite - There are absolutely no sources cited, and this article, in my opinion, needs to present more viewpoints of prominent scholars before it can claim to be "The" Historical Jesus. I'd like to see Bultmann, Crossan, Funk, Chilton, Smith, and others. --The Thadman 13:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup I'd prefer the article to provide a disclaimer at the top and more-or-less outline what the term means and the disputes surrounding precisely who the historical Jesus is. It might also do well to point out "historical Jesus" is usually contrasted with "Biblical Jesus" and the two agree on such-and-such a point and disagree on such-and-such a point, etc. Amicuspublilius 23:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep working on it. "The New Testament View of Jesus" necessarily reflects a Christian point of view (if there are different ways Christians interpret the NT, those different interpretations should be provided). But there are many critical historians and Bible scholars who believe that Jesus existed, draw on the NT as a source, but do a considerable amount of reinterpreting and reconstruction based on their rejection of the supernatural element, and their use of techniques of comparative literature, Biblical archeology, etc. We need an article that represents this important body of scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasRedirected to Pocket Full of Kryptonite. Garrett^Talk 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Princes

Take out the lyrics (which we must) and you've got basically nothing. A chart with a few statistics about how the single did on a few charts (the charts are bullshit anyway). Maybe something can be merged into the band or the album, but as I said, nothing really here. -R. fiend 21:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Pocket Full of Kryptonite. The lyrics definately have to go, but even if the charts are "bullshit", they could be important. This needs to be merged and condensed with either the album or the artist, as sugguested by the nominator. -mysekurity 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pocket Full of Kryptonite. All the chart data for the single is already listed there, and the lyrics are a copyvio, so there isn't really anything left to merge. --Metropolitan90 23:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• God, I hated this song. Redirect to Pocket Full of Kryptonite. Dcarrano 23:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear here, we do need to delete before redirecting to get the copyvio out of the page history, do we not? -R. fiend 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I thank that's advisable, so I have done so. Garrett^Talk 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well-known song. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pocket Full of Kryptonite. JamesBurns 08:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect - No argument from me for either. I enhanced the article when I saw it was just lyrics, but it seemed pretty tenuous to me all along. Hiberniantears 13:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge & redir. Radiant_>|< 15:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable song.  Grue  20:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clone (song)

Non-notable. Nothing links there. No substantive content. Created by a user with a history of vandalism. Delete LizardWizard 21:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, orphan, no interwiki, admited nn ("only released in Alaska", i mean how much more do you want? nothing against Alaska, that is), vanity. Deserves to be deleted, in my book. -mysekurity 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this comes under Speedy Deletion. Gwk 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, but before voting, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song) and my comments there, which may be helpful. They include stats for all of the songs listed. Noted that this song is listed in both places. -Harmil 22:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as below. -R. fiend 23:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close. Dcarrano 23:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete first of all I don't think Wikipedia needs indivudual songs unless it's really famous...which this one isn't really. Second it isn't notable. MLSfreak777 10:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Resolution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolutions

Not nonsense, but very poor quality. Only contribution by an anonymous user. Looks like an innocent experiment by a newbie, but still probably worth a Speedy Delete, maybe a Redirect to Resolution, along with a welcome message to the contributor (once we figure out what we're doing with it)? I stumbled onto here looking for the Star Trek episode titled Resolutions, so maybe even better would be to turn it into a redirect to Star Trek: Voyager, or a dab page??? RoySmith 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 21:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resolution. Pburka 21:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to resolution. Why the numbers, guys? -mysekurity 21:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resolution. JamesBurns 08:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all of them, but if someone wnts to replace them with redirects, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's next (song) and more

Non-notable. Created by a vandal. See also Clone (song) LizardWizard 21:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

After a bit more checking, it seems the same user also created: Half myself (song), Eracism (song), Victim (song), In the skin (song), Enemy throttle (song), Countdown extinct (song), Not ded yet (song), Daydreams (song), Amerikan beauty (song), Raise hell (song), Voices (song), The box (song), Wake up (song), The truth (song), and Represent (song) none of which have useful content. I don't want to list them all separately on VFD, but I'm not sure of the policy on vfds for multiple articles. Any help? LizardWizard 21:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Consider them all added to this VfD. Delete all, or all that aren't speedied (as I hope most will be). -R. fiend 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• speedy, as sugguested by R. fiend. self-admitted nn ("only in Alaska"). Worst case, they should all be moved to an article about the album, but it appears that's not too notable as well. Delete 'em all, I say -mysekurity 21:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (see below for exception) to the group page as appropriate. These groups (36 Crazyfists and (hed) p.e.) are fairly well known, and have many albums on Sony/BMG's sub-label, Jive and Roadrunner Records (a 25 year-old label). I believe that this was intended as vandalism, but oddly enough I've confirmed all of the titles as true, so redirection makes sense. Please note that the VfD boilerplate on the song pages was for all but Who's next (song) (I fixed it). Also not a candidate for speedy for the same reason. Let me break these down by song, and I will add target of redirect as I go: -Harmil 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Clone (song) Google 752 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Who's next (song) Google 156 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Half myself (song) Google 66 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Eracism (song) Google 127 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Victim (song) Google 9270 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • In the skin (song) Google 565 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Enemy throttle (song) Google 122 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Countdown extinct (song) Google 1 Lose this one, no redirect (band (16 Bit Slaughter) not listed because of lack of notability).
  • Not ded yet (song) Google 372Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Daydreams (song) Already deleted, but Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Amerikan beauty (song) Google 398 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Raise hell (song) Google 615 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Voices (song) Google 4000 Redirect to Voices I hate to redirect to a redirect, but it could cause future problems if "Voices (song)" redirected to "Voice"... However, Voice is the correct disambig page and already lists the Hall & Oats album by the same name.
  • The box (song) Google 535 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Wake up (song) Google 736 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • The truth (song) Google 898 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Represent (song) Google 557 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography

I have to take issue with some of your google hits. Victim "36 Crazyfists" get alot of googles, but it appears most are not about the song. "Victim" appears in the name of many other bands that are listed on the same page as 36 Crazyfists in these hits. I see nothing notable about any of these songs, and I hate it when someone decides to write godawful articles on each and every song by their favorite band. These should still be deleted, even if not speedily. -R. fiend 23:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's true, and that really can't be helped. In that one case, I think we can assume that it's the same as the other songs on that (rare) album. Keep in mind we're talking about the songs from a rare, early album from a (now) fairly well published band. I think redirection is the way to go for this. -Harmil 23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There are perhaps millions of songs in existence; I do not think it is in the best interests of wikipedia to have articles, or even redirects, on the vast majority of them. I'm sure there is at least one other insignificant song named "Victim", for instance, out there somewhere, and I'd rather not give special treatment to 36 Crazyfists by having a redirect for their version. -R. fiend 23:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

For more of an idea of where I'm coming from, see my personal thoughts on song articles. -R. fiend 23:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To Harmil, I thank you for consulting me on this VfD via my talk page, but I still feel that this artist just isn't that important. I agree with R. fiend's thoughts on song articles, and I feel that perhaps it would be a good idea to move them into one article, but I need further proof that this band is worthy of an article, otherwise I'll just vote it deleted. I think you should go ahead and make the article, and if you prove that it is worthy, it won't get deleted. I'm kinda torn on this one, sorry. -mysekurity 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As to the redirect: I think most of these song titles are common enough that they'd need disambiguation. For instance, Clone is by Avail (see Dixie (album), Who's Next? is a The Who album, Victim is by GZA, In the skin is a reasonable mistake for Jessica Simpson's In this skin, Daydreams by Johnny Crawford, Voices by Disturbed (currently links to Voices (song), spuriously), The box by Orbital, Wake up by Three Days Grace, The truth by Good Charlotte, and Represent by Chingy. Some of the song titles are probably unique, but I don't want to spend the time to find out which and even when that's done they won't remain unique forever. LizardWizard 02:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Great, and good job with that research. I'm all for changing some of the redirects to be or point to disambig pages later. I'm only recommending redirects to the bands as a first-pass, which I think is a good start (see my suggestion for Voices (song) which has already had its info moved to the disambig page Voice). -Harmil 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per R. fiend—I don't think that we need articles (or even redirects) for every song that has ever been written. Maybe there should be some equivalent of WP:MUSIC for songs. JeremyA 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Harmil. The songs seem to be notable to a small extent. DarthVader 03:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on what? That they exist? -R. fiend 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on the amount of hits they have with google. DarthVader 07:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, as per JeremyA. JamesBurns 08:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Harmil. If anyone thinks the band(s) aren't notable, VfD the bands. Since the bands exist on Wikipedia and aren't yet contested (so presumably notable), redirects aid in searching. Xoloz 09:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. DarthVader 10:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about the bands being notable (we have a very low bar for bands, you may have noticed), it's about these songs. LizardWizard has pointed out the problem with unilaterally redirecting these to a minor band like 36 Crazyfists when many other bands have songs with the same name. And even if they didn't, I don't think there's a single other band on wikipedia that has article or redirects for every one of their songs, as we're on the way to doing for this band because of a single fanboy. If 36 Crazyfists has any "hits" that are somewhat noteworthy we can address those separately, but this is ridiculous. Shall I turn Central Nervous System into a disambiguation page because its also the name of a song by Citizen Fish? -R. fiend 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, but an italized sentence at the top of the nervous system article wouldn't be a bad idea. If a band is notable enough to reside here, then, presumably, it is possible that any user might search for any of their songs. A user-friendly Wiki should accomodate these searches to the extent practicable. Massive disambiguation pages for common nouns isn't practical, but sending off redirects when they come to our attention seems practical to me. Xoloz 17:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think that's an awful idea. "Notable enough for wikipedia" isn't necesarily terribly notable; we potentially have an article by every band that's ever released some sort of album. That's thousands and thousands of songs, many of which are common words, terms, things, people, etc. Implementing your plan would have thousands of articles with useless headers at the top, so the first thing the reader sees when looking up a significant topic is that some band from the 70's whom no one's ever heard of had a song with that name (is that what you were looking for? no? Just thought we'd ask.). As no articles exist on such songs, just redirects, there's no real information to go to. In the Central Nervous System example I gave, we're talking about a rather insignificant song by what not one of the world's premier bands (great band though they are). No one who doesn't already know the song is going to search for it (it's not as if it gets radio play), so they won't gain any information out of it. While wikipedia should be (and basically is) a good resource for music topics, it is not, and should not be, a "who's that song by again?" reference. We should instead have full articles on important songs. Many headers you propose would in fact have a list of a dozen or more bands who had songs with the same name, which would particularly interfere with the article. -R. fiend 17:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Right, well, as I said, I'd impose a reasonableness test regarding practicality in cases where there were an inordinate number of songs with similar names or common names. I'm no music fan, generally, but if I looked up "Central Nervous System", I might be mildly amused/marginally enriched by learning about a song I'd never dream of. Such has happened before with the song about James K. Polk written by They Might Be Giants. I still have little idea who this band is, but I continue to chuckle that they wrote a song about our dour 11th President. In any case, little headers at the top of articles are hardly disruptive; if you have no interest, they are very easy to ignore. I suppose I support any knowledge-connections that aren't too cumbersome. Xoloz 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Where there are many songs with the same title, here's a possible solution. Imagine there are 50 songs named Highway -- at the top of the Highway article, one italicized sentence could read, There are also many songs with this title. For more information, see... and this could link to a song disambig page. Readers who cared would have a full list, others could easily ignore the one line. Xoloz 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It might be interesting to some, but its encyclopedic value is dubious, at best. And we are not here to "mildly amuse", but to mildly educate. It might not be terribly disrputive to have a header that Central Nervous System is a song by Citizen Fish, but wikipedia does have some first impression issues, and when that's the first thing someone reads when searching for that topic, it doesn't really help. Sure, it's interesting that They Might Be Giants have a song called James K. Polk (and they're a pretty good band, give them a listen sometime) but I was still quite pleased to see there was no header on the President's page stating that fact; far down in the "trivia" section is much better. On a completley different note, now that we have mentioned our 11th President, I am hoping to get him official recognition as "America's Mullet President". I hope you all endorse this. I'm thinking of making some T-shirts. -R. fiend 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • • • The merits of this proposal are so obvious that I, for one, would hope for unanimous support. Xoloz 09:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the lot of them. I wouldn't object to redirects being put there afterwards. Radiant_>|< 15:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Tagged for merging with John Daker. Joyous (talk) 15:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reva Unsicker

Delete non notable, alleged side player in a internet phenomenon of the day. Friday 21:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator sugguests, it will be forgotten in a few months (weeks? days?) time. -mysekurity 22:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even having an article on the meme at all is pushing it, much less on this person. Dcarrano 23:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with John Daker in a condensed form.--Simon.Pole 22:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with John Daker but leave a redirect here. Category 01:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I agree, it doesn't seem worth having this offshoot when there's a fully fledged article to house the information.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (but move if a more accurate name is found). -- BD2412 ^talk 22:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splash conception

• Delete dicdef at best. Friday 21:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has encyclopedic potential. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In agreement with Tony. -mysekurity 22:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a real phenomena with potential for a larger article. Pburka 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but suspect it may have a proper name, so prefer that name. It only gets 457 Google hits at this name, but I don't know what else to look for. It certainly has nothing to do with how I came to be. -Splash 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. This is certainly a genuine phenomenon, but this is certainly not the proper name for it. I looked at a good chunk of the Google hits for "splash conception" and saw only band names and slang usage. A search on Google Scholar for "splash conception" turns up no hits, and a search on the same for splash conception (no quotes) turns up nothing related to human reproduction. We need someone with a thorough grounding in biological science to cough up an educated opinion on this. Fernando Rizo 23:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In light of the Penn State Collegian interview with the Planned Parenthood volunteer, I'm willing to give this one a weak keep until proven otherwise. Fernando Rizo 04:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending a better name being found, in which case move. Kappa 23:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for now, apparent neologism. Dcarrano 23:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I got pregnant and sued Olestra. Best I can do for now is http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/07/3f820e7f0f03a?in_archive=1 (the first part was a lie, but sounded nice.) Category 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I agree though that a better biological name should be found for this. JamesBurns 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Simon.Pole 22:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There is no "conception" article, just a disambig. Otherwise I'd support redirecting there. Support rename suggestions if suitable name can be found. Friday 05:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series). Eliot 16:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ammu-Nation

Redirect I don't see how this will ever be more than a stub. Specific details about Ammu-Nation can go in the various GTA articles. Nothing much can be said about Ammu-Nation except in the context of a particular game. Friday 22:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete no potential to be more than a stub, should possibly be mentioned on the GTA articles. Jtkiefer 22:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, with a heavy heart. No real potential, but will definately need to be worked into the articles. -mysekurity 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as well. Can't see this going anywhere really as they have no history, not executive structure, no real products... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, recurring feature in an extremely notable series of games. Kappa 23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series). Ammu-Nation is mentioned in the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City article, and does not really need to be mentioned by name in any of the specific game articles, so long as its function is described. NatusRoma 23:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series), nothing to be said about it in its own article. Dcarrano 23:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Changed vote to redirect above, pointing this at Grand Theft Auto (series) as per above sounds good to me. Friday 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef and fancruft. Kaibabsquirrel 03:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft dicdef. JamesBurns 08:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable shop.  Grue  20:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This can be turned into something that is NOT a stub, prehaps a list of where the shops are in the games, the weapons in each shop, etc etc. Mrdie
• Comment I agree with Mrdie. Tunney 02:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. We really don't need the list described by Mrdie and unless somebody's likely to put together an interesting article about the shop I can't see the merit of this stub. Flowerparty 17:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

Micronation - loads of googles but most are either dubious or state that this is a fictional state --Doc (?) 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • this may be of relevance Template:VfD-Morac-Songhrati
• Keep. Seems questionable, but none of the refs I found indicated that it's fictional. Pburka 23:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • More info. It appears that the republic was a real micronation until about 1979[25]. Someone else has now started a micronation simulation based on the actual micronation[26]. My keep vote stands.
  • I'm not too bothered by this, but info like this [27] seems to question every 'fact' this article offers. --Doc (?) 23:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but that document does acknowledge that there is some historical record of the topic. If it's a hoax, it's an old one, which makes it encyclopedic in my opinion. Pburka 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See the article's references. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid (if only historical, and disputed) place. I fixed the categories of the article a bit. -Harmil 00:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Harmil. Xoloz 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Youngamerican 13:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - therefore keep by default. – ABCD✉ 21:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism in Poland

A look at the history of this page shows strong feelings on either side. There has been considerable effort made to speedy this page, even though it is not really a candidate, and it has been redirected twice to articles which really don't speak to this issue. It seems VfD is rightfully the place for a decision to be made on the fate of this article. Denni☯ 22:46, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS AN EDIT WAR OVER THE PAGE. THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT VERSIONS [28] and [29] ~~~~ 22:32,pi 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Keep There are already a slew of Jewish-related articles on Wikipedia, so why is this one any different from the rest which are not on VFD? TheUnforgiven 22:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This definately needs to be kept. I might add to this one, now that you mention it. -mysekurity 22:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it is ogin to have eternal NPOV problems and vandalism. I'll add it to my watchlist. -Splash 23:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the scope of this article is already covered at History of the Jews in Poland. I suggest to merge and redirect there. JeremyA 23:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect (as above) or blank and rewrite from the scratches, if there is a need to have a set of separate articles on anti-Semitism in every corner of the world. Preferably from a NPOV by someone not as biased and emotional as the present authors of that thingie. Poles generally being known for being one of the most Anti-Semitic peoples in the world - what rubbish is that? Halibutt 23:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland. Current article is POV. Pburka 23:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Anti-semitism. We don't need a whole swarm of articles of the sort Antisemitism in (choose any country/city), though surely anti-semitism does exist in just about all countries and cities, to a greater or lesser extent. Balcer 23:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think that the topic is an interesting one, and considering the fact that before WWII one sixth of all Jews in the world were Polish, I'd say this deserves its own page. That said, the "article" as it now stands is woefully low on information and seems to be more a thought that hits someone one day than an academic encyclopedia article. Nevertheless I'm strongly in favor of keeping the page so that six months hence there will be a fine article on the subject here. - mnuez Edit by 208.54.14.65

208.54.14.65 (talk · contribs) has only 9 contributions including 3 for VfD. --Ttyre 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Splash, please discount my vote if Splash's vote changes from keep -Harmil 23:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Space Cadet 00:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete jamesgibbon 00:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge. Resurrected by anon User:83.109.165.120 article, originally redirected to Religious_denominations_in_Poland contains statements which not only are clearly POVs but border with the vandalism. The issue of Polish Anti-Semitism has been addressed in a number of recently discussed and revised articles such as History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism, History_of_Poland_(1939-1945), History_of_Poland_(1945-1989), Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne. --Ttyre 00:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no other article on wiki dealing with anti-Semitism in a specific country - why to create a precedent? Do we really want to have articles on anti-Semitism in France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Germany, US, Canada, Russia, etc.? According to ADL annual reports there is a plenty of data on anti-Semitism in these countries - see: anti-Semitism US, anti-Semitism international. See discussion below. Ttyre 20:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is committed by User:Witkacy [30] who also keeps adding the sentence "Poles generally being known for being one of the most Anti-Semitic peoples in the world"User:83.109.157.141

I have reverted to your previous version... So whats the problem, "83.109.157.141"?--Witkacy 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ttyre: "Delete" and "Merge" are not compatible per Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Incompatible_votes. I don't think there's much to merge as long at there's no original content, just copy of another articles' contents. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep, a very importent article A&D (hebrew wikipedia)

Signature on edit unprintable(?) see edit. brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Also what's the consensus on validity of new users from other WK's? I'm too ignorant to verify a user's existence on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and then confirming that this edit is by that user seems like a logistical nightmare. brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Votes from other wikipedias' users are not counted here, see: Guide to Votes for delition. --Ttyre 15:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Deleteand Witkacy should be send to the back of the room. Aaron Brenneman 01:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility TheUnforgiven 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, you are of course correct. I spoke hastily, and for that I apologise. I'll add an apology to Witkacy on his talkpage.

How about: Several participants in this appear to have failed to act in good faith. The criterion for speedy deletion and redirection seem to me not to have been met, and I am disturbed by the partisan nature of some discussion. Aaron Brenneman 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That of which you speak is precisely what bothers me. TheUnforgiven 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ttyre. --SylwiaS 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland Avihu 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC).
• Also merge and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ttyre. JamesBurns 08:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per TheUnforgiven's comments. Xoloz 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many important things to say about anti-Semitism in Poland. It is also true that anti-Semitic statements in public and in private are still more common in modern Poland than they are in most other European countries. However, this article is beyond repair. Apart from the fact that much of the information is inaccurate or simply incorrect (such as the claims about the presence of anti-Semitic cartoons in the mainstream press, attacks against synagogues - which are paradoxically rarer in Poland than in other countries where verbal anti-Semitism is tolerated less, the "deportation" of Jews in 1968). Other portions are deliberately vague to create a false impression in the reader (such "anti-Semitism in Poland as has a long history", "Persecution of Jews took place both before, during and after the Second World War", "During the war many Poles actively took part in the Holocaust"). It is fairly obvious that this article was created in response to the ongoing VFD against Anti-Polonism, and thus constitutes a clear violation of WP:POINT. Let there be no mistake, the history of anti-Semitism in Poland certainly warrants a proper article. I am actually surprised that this prominent topic has not been covered yet. However, if one extracts the useful stuff from this drivel of simplifications and accusations, much too little will be left to justify an article. If no one comes up with any text that does more justice to this complex matter within the usual deadline, it's better to delete the article altogether for the time being. --Thorsten1 10:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: Based on Piotrus's version I change my vote to keep. --Thorsten1 22:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Another update: When changing my vote from strong delete to conditional keep I was not aware that Piotrus's text was not original but duplicated material from other articles. I appreciate Piotrus's effort at improving this article, but I think there is a case for a seperate article on anti-Semitism in Poland only if redundancy with articles such as Anti-Semitism and History of Jews in Poland is kept to a minimum. In modern Poland, anti-Semitism exists even in the absence of any major Jewish population group - it focuses on "imaginary" Jews in Poland and alleged anti-Polish lobbying by Jews outside Poland. Thus, it is possible and to some extent even necessary to deal with this sociological phenomenon outside the article History of Jews in Poland. However, as long as the article remains a) strongly POV or b) strongly redundant with other articles, I change my vote back to delete. Sorry for adding to the confusion. --Thorsten1 20:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• • If necessary, be bold, and prune this article down to a sentence or two. As you say, this is a valid topic -- feel free to eliminate whatever you must to achieve NPOV, but let a stub remain for future writers to expand. Xoloz 17:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I could certainly do that. However, I won't do so for two reasons: Any reasonable editing is likely to be immediately reverted by POV pushers from either side who are attracted to such articles like moths to a light bulb... Apart from that, as I said above, the non-POV substance of the article would hardly even reach the stub threshold: "Anti-Semitism in Poland exists. After the end of World War II [it was] [...] used at certain moments by communist party or individual politicians in order to achieve their [...] political goals." I think we all agree that this would not really be worth keeping. --Thorsten1 22:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep Deror 12:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclo. Radiant_>|< 15:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It was pointed out to me that there are two versions of this page. However, that doesn't change my opinion that this is not a good topic. History of Jews in Poland and Anti-Semitism can cover the subject, but the cross-section thereof is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 07:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• delete useless rant. The article does not describe a single fact. The topic is valid (and pretty much covered in the History of the Jews in Poland), but the article under the vote is garbage. mikka (t) 17:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. The article is a POV rant misduplicating material at History of the Jews in Poland. This subject is valid, but need not be discussed separately from Jewish Polish history. If that article gets too big, the solution is to break it up by dates, not by extracting one aspect as though it were somehow independent from the rest of Jewish history in the various incarnations of Poland. As it stands, this farticle is as much a magnet for trolls and vandals as Anti-Polonism. Tomer ^TALK 21:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Treat my vote as Delete unless material is removed from main Anti-Semitism article, then Keep. The article was blatantly POVed, but I fixed it by replacing it by (much more extensive and sourced) text from relevant sections on Anti-Semitism page. Note that this means I deleted all the old content - as many said, it was beyong salvage. For long time there have been discussions at Talk:Anti-Semitism to create such a subarticle(s) and move national anti-semitic material there - this is a good start. I see it as a subarticle to Anti-Semitism. It should be part of the series of Anti-Semitism in Germany, Anti-Semitism in France, Anti-Semitism in Italy, Anti-Semitism in United States, etc - but it should not exists separately. On many levels it is a similar case to Anti-Polonism, IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reverted user:Piotrus complete re-write of the article. Please wait till the voting is concluded: couple of dozen people has already voted. Besides, material on anti-Semitism in a specific country from anti-Semitism should be moved to existing articles e.g. history of the Jews in a given country and/or history of that country. --Ttyre 10:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but in the current state I vote delete (and then possibly recreate and reweite this article as I suggested above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Gilgamesh he 11:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Votes from other wikipedias' users are not counted here, see: Guide to Votes for delition. --Ttyre 15:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • He's an active user at the English Wikipedia. Why are Jews not counted by Poles?? With your logic, all the Poles coming from pl.wikipedia to vote here should be discounted as well. I'm sure you have an account at pl.User:83.109.139.109

• Comment: The VfD tag says explicitly that "You are welcome to edit this article." The major rewrite that Piotrus executed solves problems raised by nine delete votes (so far) (see here). Wouldn't it be hypocritical to vote delete on account of severe POV, yet revert the article when the POV is fixed? On numerous occasions, VfDs were the cause of major improvement to articles during the VfD. Many times, those improvements caused the articles to be salvaged, having caused many to change their votes. Please don't manipulate the votes of others because you don't want the article at all. HKT 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Again, why do you want to create a redundant article thus creating a precedence for A-S + specific country? Look at the bigger picture and compare how A-S and the Holocaust-era past issues are being handled in specific country articles e.g. Romania, Hungary, Austria, etc. I would think that these countries, as major collaborators during The Holocaust, would deserve more of your and similarly-minded editors' attention. --Ttyre 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)--Ttyre 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have much of a problem with creating such a precedent. This would allow sections on A-S by country (which would otherwise needlessly elongate the main anti-Semitism article) to have their own articles. I didn't start this article, but, now that it's here, why not use it as a precedent for streamlining the current main A-S article? As Piotr wrote, "It should be part of the series of Anti-Semitism in Germany, Anti-Semitism in France, Anti-Semitism in Italy, Anti-Semitism in United States, etc." And, by the way, I haven't cast a vote yet; I'm currently undecided about whether this is the time to move info from the main A-S article to individual articles. My comment wasn't a call to keep the article, per-se. It was a call to retain the integrity of the VfD, which I believe you have been compromising. HKT 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable topic.  Grue  20:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to History of the Jews in Poland. Current article is lousy as it is. Pavel Vozenilek 21:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ttyre. --Akumiszcza 21:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand per comments by Unforgiven. The fact is that Poland, in many ways, is a special case historically where the issue of anti-Semitism is concerned. The current article is insufficient but no more so than most stubs. It needs considerable expansion. But the existence or non-existence of other articles dealing with antisemitism in specific countries can hardly be a valid criterion for deleting this one.--Briangotts 21:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The existence or non-existence of other articles can hardly be a valid criterion for deleting or keeping any article. However, please note my changed vote that based upon the excellent work of Piotrus. brenneman^(t)(c) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There has been a suggestion that recent revert warring over very different versions of the page have been used to affect voting. Votes above this note were not informed of this and may need to be considered seperately. ~~~~ 22:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I want my vote to count in full regardless of where in the page it appears. My opinion is unchanged. -Splash 15:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep a very notable subject in the history and sociology of poland. Klonimus 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland. Article is POV. ~~~~ 22:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Anti-Semitism --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Parts of it could be merged with History of the Jews in Poland and/or Anti-Semitism. This article is one-sided. All aspects should be in History of the Jews in Poland, both good ones and bad ones. Pibwl ←« 23:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable topic, there is no reason that I am aware of to merge or delete the article. Falphin 01:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually this is poor man's version of better structured, more: complete, detailed, balanced and NPOV History of the Jews in Poland. Considering Anti-Semitism (which seriously needs content rearranging anyway), History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Poland (1572-1795) and History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union (covering partitions of Poland too) and that there is whole line of History of Jews in... articles there is hardly need for just another article becoming seed for another line of similarly POV-ish and one-sided articles. To Piotrus: sorry, actually I viewed your version first and above sentences of poor man version pertain to it. Of course version you corrected had overwhelming POV problem but frankly, IMHO dePOVing redundant article to a less developed version of existing ones is a waste of time. Of course there are parts that could be merged into aforementioned existing articles where they add value to them and this is true value of your work. -- Forseti 11:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs cleanup, but it's a notable subject. TheCoffee 12:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Hbk3 12:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hbk3 is a Wikipedia:Sock puppet - no other activity besides this vote. --Ttyre 12:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Forseti's opinion. A.J. 14:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with History of the Jews in Poland. – Kpalion (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-there is already a huge section on Polish perceived antisemitism in other articles.This one is extremely POV.Molobo

Molobo (talk · contribs)'s 24th edit. Also involved in anti-Polonism VfD. HKT 03:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - This is a valid topic and the article contains good information. Clearly it needs to be cleaned up, but deleting it is a mistake - just because Poles don't want to deal with this subject doesn't mean it didn't happen. GabrielF 15:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please read justifications for deletion again, most votes for deletion are also for merging its content with existing articles. Please be more considerate when tempted to use such a POV-ed ethnic stereotyping, see: Wikipedia:Civility. --Ttyre 16:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to History of the Jews in Poland. Article is POV. This is the most reasonable solution. Cautious 19:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge where applicable. Otherwise a useless rant. Agree with User:Ttyre. --Wojsyl (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect content into History of the Jews in Poland: it already covers antisemitism, like all other [[History of the Jews in <Country>]] articles, see Category:Jewish history. mikka (t)
• That's a very important subject. However, both sides of the edit war clearly don't have a clue about anti-Semitism in 20th/21st century Poland. There are many disturbing things in longer version's description of pre-20th century events. It uses mostly secondary sources and an almost exclusively focuses on anti-Semitic events to the exclusion of background information. It doesn't look like an article written in good faith. Where's the information about Jewish position in the social structure of the First Republic, about the situations of other faiths in it, about Jewish involvement in socialist and communist movement, the conflict between the socialists/communists and Polish nationalists which fed early 20th-century anti-Semitism, about anti-Jewish pogroms in czarist Russia which also spread to occupied Poland, about situation of other minorities in the Second Republic, cooperation of Jews in occupied Poland with the Soviet government, about involvement of many usually "anti-Semitic" nationalists in anti-Holocaust activities, and about usage of word "Żyd" to mean "member of the leftist/liberal conspiracy" by the modern nationalists (that's why asking people questions on anti-Semitism in Poland is futile - the nationalists believe they're answering different question than one the inquirer believes he's asking) ? It's a horrible article. I, for one, don't think it's possible to write a good article on the subject alone, while leaving the background information elsewhere. Therefore I'm strongly for deleting the article and redirecting to History of the Jews in Poland. Taw 08:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that anyone wants to keep either version as the final one. Both would need major improvement. However, while History of the Jews in Poland provides a good summary of anti-Semitism in Poland, it doesn't really get into background and underlying dynamics, which you have said are important. It also doesn't get into the controversies regarding the extent of and reasons for anti-Semitism. I think that, theoretically (at least), this article would be necessary for a more thorough analysis of this topic. However, as Piotr mentioned, someone should be willing to work on this article. I don't really foresee that for the near future, but there will certainly be a time when this article will be needed. HKT 16:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant Tirid Tirid 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A bunch of immaterial anti Polish accusations by "83.109.157.141". Schwartz und Weiss 00:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Anti-semitism might exist in all countries but there are definite concentrations at specific hot-spots and Poland is a major one. If anything there should be more articles, not less, on this topic (tackling different aspects of it). --wayland 17:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oh really? It appears to me that you must be deeply prejudiced on this subject because hard data doesn't support your view that Poland is a major hot spot for anti-Semitism. Please see for yourself the Israeli website The Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism listing contemporary anti-Semitic incidents around the world. Some examples of a number of A-S incidents by country: France 828, Great Britain 798, Russia 352, US 216, Germany 120, Spain & Austria 56, Poland 40, Italy 31. Poland, population-size, is slightly smaller than Spain. Also, in the future, be more careful when tempted to used similar statements - they are often being considered as an example of anti-Polonism. --Ttyre 20:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• I object to the personal nature of the response from Ttyre. I'm happy to discuss the various ways that this topic should be addressed but I'm not prepared to enter into personal mud-slinging contests. --wayland 16:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• It also should be noticed that out of the 40 incidents observed in Poland since Sept. 2000 till today only 18 were Anti-Semitic out of which one was committed by a French tourist. Here’s the list by categories:

Attack 0

Violent incident 6

Desecration 2

Harassment 2 (first - three boys shouting the word “Jew” at a Jewish tourist, second - a French tourist hit an Israeli tourist)

Threat 0

Propaganda 8

Straggle against Anti-Semitism 3

Miscellaneous 0

Remaining 19 are discoveries of WWII mass graves, reports from trials etc. --SylwiaS 00:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for proving my point below, Sylwia. Quite obviously this is a very randomly compiled list. To get an idea of how misleading and contradictory statistical results can be, refer to the Anti-Defamation League's 2005 study on attitudes in European countries and see how Poland scores. There is no denying the problem. The question remains how and where to address it in Wikipedia. I think we agree that the present article is unacceptable.--Thorsten1 09:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually it’s not a randomly compiled list. It’s a list of all incidents related to anti-Semitism that took place in Poland in indicated time. The poll you linked to is among the remaining 19. I agree that numbers never tell everything, but I’m also not sure what questions the poll answers. I looked through the pdf study of this poll, and I really have more questions than answers. I don’t deny anything, I just don’t understand how the poll can be helpful in altering attitude towards Jews unless there is another poll, which answers the questions. --SylwiaS 00:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Let's try to stay civil, Ttyre. The frequency of anti-Semitic incidents is not the only standard by which to measure the problem. Statistics are rarely a reliable basis for comparisons, too many variables interfere, such as what is defined and gets reported as an "anti-Semitic incident"; also not only the overall size of the population is a factor, but also the number of Jewish citizens, Jewish institutions etc. Also, the past is of equal importance as the present. There can be no serious doubt that Poland, up to WW II a multi-ethnic country with a huge portion of Jews with a distinct ethnic identity, was also more burdened with ethnic conflict, including but not limited to Polish-Jewish conflict, than ethnically homogenous countries in the west. The semi-truth of the żydokomuna is very much a Polish issue, the events of 1968 are quite unparalleled, and until today conspiracy theories involving real or imaginary Jews thrive better in Poland than in many other countries - most recently in response to the Jedwabne affair. Of course, most accusations of past and present anti-Semitism in Poland stubbornly ignore its specific context, are unbearably complacent and often attempts of absolving oneself of one's "own" anti-Semitism. The original version of the article we are or should be discussing here is a textbook example of this. On the other hand, though, nervously attacking anyone who merely mentions anti-Semitism in Poland with hip-fired accusations of anti-Polonism isn't at all better - in fact, the concept of anti-Polonism suffers the very same defects as the concept of anti-Semitism. Plus, like it or not, few people outside Poland care to take it seriously, so complaints about anti-Polonism can backfire badly. --Thorsten1 23:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• I live outside Poland and am taking the issue of A-P seriously. --Ttyre 00:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Then you certainly know well enough what I meant, don't you?. --Thorsten1 09:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not just the article, but the very idea, is either a sick joke, or anti-Polish propaganda. Rübezahl 00:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but make a subpage) As one of the people who has been laboring very hard on History of the Jews in Poland (and I strongly suggest that people voting here spend a few minutes reading the talk page), I have been putting a lot of thought into this vote. On one hand, something that came out of writing the article is that it is clear that Poland is often unfairly blamed for being much more anti-semitic than it was for much of its history, especially before the 19th century. On the other hand, it is also clear that there is a historical thread of severe anti-semitism from the 1920s-1930s through at least the 1970s in Poland (and, as recent surveys indicate, probably until today), and that discussion of this topic is often difficult. I think that the current History of the Jews in Poland page does a good job dealing with many of these issues, but that, as both a history article and a long one at that, it does not delve into the subject in much depth outside of the chronology of events, which does a disservice to both the Polish history of tolerance and the persecutions of Polish Jews when they did happen. Thus, I would suggest that we turn this page into a subpage of the History of the Jews in Poland dealing specifically with the issue of anti-semitism in Polish history. I would hope that we could develop an article here that would neither bash Poland nor deny anti-semitic threads in recent Polish history. That may be too much to hope for, but deleting the article seems to beg the question, no matter what perspective you may have on the topic. At least this article creates a good place to discuss both the myths and the facts, rather than denying that this issue is not one of curiosity and importance to many people. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete V1^t 13:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. logologist 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or rewrite, The European Jewish Congress warned about anti-semitic policies in Poland in 2004, at same time many Jewish persons protested about that message in Polish media, i don't think its NPOV version, better create one page with many nation if you have to.rafikk