Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 11

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. --Conti|✉ 02:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socio-Nationalism

Neologism. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism with just 15 unique Google hits and 2 matches on Usenet posts. (Also, anybody choosing to describe themselves with this neologism should take into account how eerily similar to National Socialism it sounds). — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duly noted, Ливай. The last sentence is pretty sketchy as well, trying to claim that it's not advertising, and as per above, it's also nn. -mysekurity 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Djadek 15:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Axon 16:33, 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 Delete --Conti|✉ 03:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amir farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The only thing that links there is this VfD tag :) -mysekurity 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, it's actually a portion of his resume in the external link. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reasons above. -Uris 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I think he may be just notable for inclusion. Typing "Amir Farmanesh" into google gives 215 hits, and the majority of them are relevent [1]. I don't actually know the criteria for inclusion for government officials, but he seems notable enough from looking at that article. However, it should be moved to Amir Farmanesh.Cyclone49 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Curriculum vitae; we've been o'er this and o'er this. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Were this to already be a 3rd person, NPOV discussion of the achievements of the person's life, and were those achievements to have amounted to something significant, there would be a debate. However, as a CV, there isn't. Geogre 15:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a student building a resume at this point. Dcarrano 20:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn cv vanity. And only 99 unique google hits. --Etacar11 23:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CV, Vanity royblumy 23:15, 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. --Conti|✉ 03:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above (and my previous vote). This guy obviously hadn't heard of a redirect, it seems. -mysekurity 01:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Also appears to be a copyvio-- duplicates his personal web page. -- Mwanner 01:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as website copy. If at all noteworthy this content should have its site linked in his article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Redundant, even if the other were kept. Geogre 15:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above identical vfd. --Etacar11 23:43, 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 merge and redirect to List of Power Rangers monsters --Conti|✉ 03:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silo Monster

Monster from one episode of power rangers. Non-notable to the extreme.--InShaneee 00:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yea, just slightly. What is this, "powerrangerscruft"? That's too many letters! -mysekurity 01:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Power Rangers monsters, but it doesn't need its own article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This fits perfectly into List of Power Rangers monsters. DarthVader 04:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Power Rangers monsters. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as suggested. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• "Hey, baby, wanna see my silo monster?" Merge and redirect per above, I suppose. Geogre 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect [[royblumy|royblumy] 00:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Power Rangers monsters as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 11:14, 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 no consensus, so keep. --Conti|✉ 03:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffries Projects

No claim to notability. Just some buildings with a history of falling apart and housing drug dealers. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, what's wrong with drug dealers? Sadly, it has no place here. -mysekurity 01:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A housing development of 18 14-story buildings is pretty notable. An awful lot of people must have lived in those buildings. I would say with a population that large it would be comparable to one of the many neighborhoods of Chicago we have articles on.--Pharos 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major housing projects are notable enough, see Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor Homes. I wouldn't have a problem with a merge if this is part of a larger neighborhood within Detroit. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:53, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • In fact, I think this could reasonably be put in Category:Detroit neighborhoods itself.--Pharos 04:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Housing projects this size are notable. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable buildings. JamesBurns 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Unlike Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes, there is no indication that this particular project served any role in history, was the locus of any particular action, or is an exemplar of the misguided project mentality. The number of persons passing through it is totally irrelevant, because, by that logic, again, every pizzaria in New York City would be more "notable" than the Battle of Little Big Horn. Rather, it is the effect that a thing has had on the world, and it is that solely because that indicates the likelihood of a need for discussion and explanation and the likelihood of a term being sought by researchers. There is no rule on tenements, projects, height of buildings, etc. To suggest such is to abrogate your voting responsibilities entirely in favor of "rubber stamp" votes. Each article is an individual entity. Geogre 15:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not some corner pizzeria; it was a community of thousands of people. If the community was sited in nice private homes spread out over some suburban tract, presumably there would not be an objection, because there are thousands of such articles on Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There would be an objection from me. We do not cover subdivisions, housing estates, etc. We don't do that for the rich or the poor. We only do little subdivisions of perfect homes if they have some interplay with history or the wider culture. The same should be true of tenements. Again, saying "lots of people live there" is ridiculous as a criterion for inclusion or deletion. You don't feel a sudden need to look up 225 Smith Street in Shanghai just because there might be 1,000 people there. You need to look it up if it has some significance other than being a big box of people, if it has some place in history or politics or literature or some other way in which it needs contextualizing. To think otherwise is to think that encyclopedias are about good and bad, that they are passing values by inclusion. Not so. Geogre 23:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It becomes no less notable for being a notable neighborhood belonging to poor people. A. J. Luxton 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it's not notable because poor people live in it. Rather, because there is no claim to notability in the article, besides simply housing a lot of people. Like Geogre said, how do these buildings affect society at large? Should I be encouraged to write articles on each dormitory complex at my university? After all, lots of people live there, even if there's virtually nothing to say about them, and certainly nothing that would be of any interest or relevance to the wider culture. We live in a world of six billion people. Allowing articles for anything that holds a couple thousand, regardless of whether anything notable ever happened there, would be like allowing an article for every street in every big city. — Ливай | Ⓣ 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable neighborhood royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How is this article different then one on public housing high rise projects built in the 1950s? Didn't they all go through the same set of problems? If so, then why is this one so unique that it is encylopedic on its own and not unreasonable to just cover it in a general topic article? Somehow I don't see the number of complaints being filed as encylopedic. Vegaswikian 04:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not the number of complaints that's encyclopedic. It's the fact that this was a major community of Detroit. Eighteen 14-story buildings is a real residential neighborhood, just as real as the 13 others (Category:Detroit neighborhoods) we have articles on.--Pharos 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm becoming more of a rabid inclusionist every time I see a needless VfD like this one. This housing project is notable enough and an interesting part of Detroit's history, a neighborhood of sorts in its own right. Why delete it? It's a symbol of, and an important part of, Detroit's particular social culture, especially as it existed in the era of large housing projects. And it's become a cliche but for heaven's sake, repeat after me, Wikipedia is not paper. Edit: I've read a bit about this housing development, and have consequently added some to the article as well as added a link. Actually, this was rather a notable housing development in Detroit (uh, thirteen separate 14-story buildings; don't minimize it), and serves as a symbol of the failures of the high-rise, isolated public-housing model in American cities. There are many articles about the projects (find them on Google) and I encourage everyone to read the article linked in the article now, from the Detroit News. This isn't, as someone keeps comparing these supposedly "non-notable" VfD entries to, a random pizzeria. Moncrief 06:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These housing projects are a big part of how urban America developed itself. Development like that is a big thing in that it drastically affects how a city grows and shapes itself. They are now a big part of urban America's history. They notable, especially these extreme examples. -maclean25 07:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in the article established notability. As they've been mostly destroyed, I don't see how something new could happen that would make them notable. Maybe they're still known to people from that area, but I don't see how buildings (even large ones) are automatically notable. Friday 14:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is a minor concern for a non-paper Wikipedia. It is not a great article, but it could, with expansion and more verifiability, be valuable to researchers. Such concerns are editorial, and not deletion criteria. Dystopos 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencylopedic. Nothing her or in the article has shown that this neighborhood is encylopedic. It could be mentioned in a list of failed 1950s projects or maybe, if they are different enough, in a failed detroit neighborhood article. This would not be the place for a researcher to look for information, they would go to the back issues of the local newspapers. This is not the place for everything non encylopedic. For this resource to be useful there needs to be quality. Without quality articles, this wiki will die. Including articles that should not belong does not help this project. Notability is not the criteria for admission, however lack of notability is clearly a reason to not include an article. Noteable articles that are not encylopedic should be deleted. Vegaswikian 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree. Researchers will look here for information on topics that are encyclopedic, even if well below the bar of notability for paper encyclopediae. It is more helpful (and absolutely NOT harmful) to have such information preserved here. This would, of course, include references to the pertinent back issues of local papers. Where there is a lack of "quality", there is an invitation to improve the article, not to axe it. --- And while I'm on it, even if I were going to give "notability" more credit as a criterion for deletion, having witnessed a consensus to keep a fleeting web-meme, I would have to set the bar WELL below the threshold of a major public housing project in a major American city. Dystopos 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment so a bad decision can be used to justify more? The issue is encylopedic and I don't see that quality in this article. I do see it for an article about the failed housing projects of the 1950s since they all had similar histories and problems. For a project to be encylopedic on its own it would have to be rather different then a general article. I suspect that you and I would agree that some VfD votes keep moving the bar lower and that may not be a good thing if it gets too low. Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • We probably would agree on some. In this case, I think a single housing project is likely to have as much verifiable, encyclopedic info as entire classes of Wikipedia entries both notable and not notable. The fact that the article does not yet contain much of it is an editorial weakness. Deletion doesn't help us. Wikipedia is blessed with the potential to become much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles like this should be left open to encourage the development of that potential. Dystopos 03:03, 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. --Conti|✉ 03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZAG

Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, probably just a joke. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a hoax. Jaxl 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Unverifiable. The article helpfully tells us that the organization lacks any tangible existence. There's nothing to rewrite about, moreover. Although quite a few ZAG University departments exist, Zentrum für Angewandte Geowissenschaften and Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies aren't the English names that they are known by. Delete. Uncle G 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence such an organization actually exists. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax or is not noteworthy. The irony in the ZAG is pretty funny. DarthVader 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems more like a bad joke and unverifiable. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Original author here... perhaps it should be deleted: ZAG is indeed a joke. I guess the question is whether the joke is widespread enough to make note here. Or perhaps just the article tone is wrong. Much like TLA and GNU, ZAG is an amusing self referential joke on the tendancy to turn everything into an acronym. I guess calling it an organization is misleading... it's just that that is the form of the joke: someone complains about acronyms, and then the jokester asks if they'd like to join the association for "zero acronym growth", or ZAG. Ha ha ha. Well, that's the deal. If it should be deleted based on that, I won't argue. If it should be modified, that sounds good too. Thanks. 05:00, , 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just made an attempt to wikify and expand the page. It isn't a hoax, simply a joke that I believe deserves an explanation. -- Reinyday 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, is it a notable joke? How popular is it? There are no Google hits for "zero acronym growth", and I can't fathom why an English-language joke notable enough for an encyclopedia would not appear anywhere on the web. — Ливай | Ⓣ 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 00:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MentalBot

Somewhere between "not notable" and "vanity". There are some 26000 hits for the Beehive Forums, which might merit an article (although not in my opinion). However, the bot itself gets very few hits, and none from the aforementioned article. Nothing links here, and only two edits -- from the same anonymous user -- grace the article. Avriette 01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Add "nonsense" to above two reasons. Avriette 01:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. yea, seems kinda pointless and nn to me. In agreement with Avriette -mysekurity 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete whatever the hell it thinks it is. The nominator is too generous: it is nowhere between nn and vanity: it's absurdity from otherwhere. -Splash 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have said {{db|inspid rubbish}} but probably people would have called me prejudiced, or a deletionist, or whatever. I figured it wasn't a speedy, and that the vfd would bear it out. Last time I thought something was completely deletable, 40mm grenade, the article was vastly expanded within a week. I am generally not generous. Avriette 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. royblumy 00:21, 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. --Conti|✉ 03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phuk

hoax with zero (0) relevant Google hits ➥the Epopt 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ken 01:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. --PrologFan 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been speedied as nonsense. -- Mwanner 01:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with no source cited. I asked for backup from the author, who had time to vandalize the VfD tag, but no opportunity to back up the information in the article. Joyous (talk) 01:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, unverifiable, nonsense. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. DarthVader 02:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Seeaxid 04:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax unles proven other way. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense --Blu Aardvark 08:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• #Redirect to [[Fuck]]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per ➥the Epopt -Harmil 12:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Let's get this outa there.--GrandCru 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ElleBigelow 05:21, 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 no consensus, therefore keep. --Conti|✉ 03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wenlin Software for learning Chinese

This page is an ad for a particular piece of software from a particular company. It is not an encylopedic article. There are many other programs, including freeware and open source, which have a dictionary function etc. Mccready 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn ad vanity. -mysekurity 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A stub constituting only an ad, therefore falls under Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Companies. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep, this is not a simple Chinese-English dictionary, it collects a lot of referencial etymological infos about Chinese characters (from Wieger, Karlgren, etc) and is used by many sinologists and in many universities around the world. Moreover, if I look in some categories of softwares, I could find things like Konnect or Tlen that aren't being VfDed... gbog 05:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think if it was expanded a bit, and included more than just basic advertisement, I would change my vote. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mysekurity. Weak keep after rewrite and assurances of those in better position than me to know that the product is notable (although I still would have liked more specific proof of that). Dcarrano 03:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete if not rewritten. I'm happy to believe that it is a major product, and an NPOV version would be a keep. It's not horrid advertising now, so a little cleaning would swing my vote. Geogre 15:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well known integrated learning system for the Chinese language. There is a review of the package, paying attention to its weaknesses as well as its strong points, here at csu.edu. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have copy edited, adding more information about the software, and a link to the review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge, to a new article with just the company name, as opposed to a page for its product. --Eliezer 11:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Wenlin Institute" shows about 850 google hits. --Eliezer 11:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a technical matter, "redirect and merge to a new article" is best executed as a page move. Just move to the new name and then edit content accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable product. Unfocused 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not familiar with vfd policies and didn't find and guideline stating if I'm allowed or not to call some users I know who may vote "keep" (some people that I met while editing Chinese philo related articles). I may explain also why I feel this article on Wenlin is usefull, notably for some other articles : explaining Chinese "concepts" in English is not simple, (typically for "things" like Tao) an usefull way to do it is to give some "etymology" of the Chinese character (even if it is sometimes useless). It give a main line and/or a start. Etymology in Chinese is often very "unprofessionnal" as everyone can see "little pictures" is characters. However, there are some serious and usefull works made on every Chinese characters internal composition and history, those of Wieger and Karlgren for instance. Wenlin is one of them (or, more accuratly, is collecting them). Then, my claim is that this article on Wenlin is valuable for attributing an explanation of a Chinese character. I heard that a major trend in wikipedia now is cite sources, and this helps a lot. BTW, I'm only a user of Wenlin, I don't work for them ! gbog 02:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bushka--GrandCru 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This may be a borderline advertisement, but it does seem more explanatory than promotional. ElleBigelow 05:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It seems the author might help by spending some time giving us the history of the product and how it is fits into the history of translation. ElleBigelow 05:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not written in form of an ad. And I have heard of Chinese learners using this program before. --Menchi 02:50, 16 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 move to The ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons. --Conti|✉ 03:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THE ABC OF SEX EDUCATION FOR TRAINABLES

Note: I found this nomination half completed, I'm following through lots of issues | leave me a message 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This must be a hoax. I think it should be deleted. Did I do this right?--BirgitteSB July 7, 2005 23:51 (UTC)

-Its a real movie, google it up.

It does look to be real. The title and all caps and small amount of info made me think it was a hoax. I think it should be deleted if left as is, but it could also be done properly.--BirgitteSB July 8, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

• Cleanup and expand. As-is, it's pretty bad, and at least it should be dropped in its caps. -mysekurity 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to The ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons per IMDB. Pburka 02:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Pburka. Dcarrano 02:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actual movie. Rename according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be renamed and expanded. DarthVader 03:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move as per Pburka. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:35, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Move as per Pburka. --Blu Aardvark 08:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move and keep, as per Pburka. JamesBurns 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion #1. It can then be recreated at its proper title. There are very few words in this "article," and those that are present are POV. It's "infamous?" Let me guess: the anti-sex education folks like to mention it as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood. There is no article here at all. Geogre 16:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an actual movie, I bought it off Ebay a few years ago and I'm surprised it isn't still being sold there. As far as I can tell, it dosn't have anything to do with planned parenting, I think I saw in the credits that it was payed for by the city of New York. It very creepy anachronistic fun to watch but, considering it's rarity, I'd say it is hardly infamous. --The_stuart 15:03, 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 redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. --Conti|✉ 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orlaith McAllister

If only Big Brother contestants were required to use NewSpeak... Not notable person in a notable but execrable show. Aaron Brenneman 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, most reality show contestants are not notable. Dcarrano 03:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need articles for non notable big brother contestants. DarthVader 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Djadek 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (UK TV series) and kill the links that go here. I've got nothing against articles on reality show contestants if they've done something noteworthy, but this is a stub which doesn't mention anything that's not already in Big Brother (UK TV series). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per MacGuyverMagic. Almafeta 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm -- Jonel | Speak 02:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (UK TV series). JamesBurns 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it seems that every contestant on Big Brother has their own article, most of which are only a paragraph long. Personally I believe that they should all be merged & redirected into the appropriate article on the show (Big Brother UK series 6 in this case), but that's not really a matter for VFD, it's a matter of bold editing. —Stormie 10:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. See also Maxwell Ward. When we talk about 'noteworthy' contestants, do we include Derek Laud? He seems notworthy in his own right. BB just added to his fame. --Celestianpower ^talk 12:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Ungood cruftthink. David | Talk 16:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because she is a current contestant, not a past contestant. I'd vote to delete it once the show has finished, because she'll probably fade into oblivion. 212.139.30.87 16:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (This was actually Oliver Keenan 16:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC) who had forgotten to login)
• Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 instead of the TV series article. Not sure really if reality show contestants deserve to be notable, but OK... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per mgm. The JPS 18:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I think this should be kept until the end of Big Brother UK Series 6 (or until she is evicted, if this happens prior to the end of the series) - if she does not win the series, it should be Redirected and Merged. Phantomsteve 19:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge sometimes contestants have valid reasons to separate articles. This isn't one of them. --Vamp:Willow 20:19, 16 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. --Conti|✉ 04:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SillyGoth

Advert for non-notable website. Self-promotion from one of the site's admins (on every newpage edit screen: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)."), and an alexa rank of 753,889. Only 348 displayed hits[2], mostly where anybody can post, so it's hard to know how many of them are also self-promotion. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Dcarrano 04:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons give above. -Splash 04:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, use of "we", and peacock terms ("amazing"). People, please read the rules before making an article. I didnt, and my first got deleted, but I learned my lesson, I hope. -mysekurity 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 09:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Niteowlneils. --Blu Aardvark 09:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, forum vanity, advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant POV editing. -- Natalinasmpf 13:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Niteowlneils. royblumy 00:26, 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. --Conti|✉ 04:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghettoware

Non-notable neologism dic def du jour. 43 displayed hits[3] most of which appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 03:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Funny, yes; but useful, no. -mysekurity 05:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism/veiled racism with no currency. (Odd that the forced settlement of Jews in Warsaw would be used this way.) Geogre 16:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism, nn. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 18:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. royblumy 00:26, 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 Redirect --Allen3 ^talk 00:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanenglish

Bonus non-notable neologism dic def du jour. About 200 displayed hits[4] but many if not most appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Engrish and pretend this never happened. --nixie 01:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above and place to the back of my mind... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above two reasons -mysekurity 05:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - Good grief! You mean Japanese people don't speak with Received Pronunciation?! the wub "?/!" 08:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per all above. royblumy 00:26, 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!) 08:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Daniel

Not sure what to make of this. Definetly vainty though...Delete and vote for the new speedy deletions so we won't need to wait to delete pages like this. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hugh Daniel didn't write it. I did. I did it only because the FreeS/WAN project page referred to him. It also refers to John Gilmore.--Mcr314 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this comment can be investigated. DarthVader 03:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsensical non-encyclopedic article. With an article like that, I'm afraid I'm not going to grace the comment with an investigation. -Splash 04:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and what appears to be vanity. I doubt it is useful, unless it shows something significant. -mysekurity 05:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable nonsense. JamesBurns 09:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable (you can't get information about him), irrational (loud man, thinks about lots of things), and nothing points to any reason for an article about him. Geogre 16:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, close to vanity, even if he didn't write it. --Etacar11 23:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. royblumy 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Retain If Wikipedia is going to have articles about nobodies like Robert Scoble, then there should certainly be an article for a person who's made real contributions to as many fields as Hugh Daniel has. Besides the FreeS/WAN Project, He was a major figure in the early Macintosh developer community, the cypherpunks, Nanotech, and many other fields. He likes to keep a low profile, which is why you haven't heard of him. (Unsigned vote by 67.161.42.199)
• Comment There is also a Hugh Daniel who is somewhat notable as the head of a multinational corporation. If kept, the article should disambiguate. Dystopos 15:11, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 00:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza Delivery

Spongebob-cruft. Stub with no potential, describing a single episode of a TV show. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pizza delivery. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Make this page redirect to Pizza delivery. This episode information could be put in some Spongebob Squarepants article. DarthVader 03:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pizza delivery - which, by the way, has already mentioned the Spongebob episode for ages. :-D -- BD2412 ^talk 03:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Spongebob articles, then redirect as per above. -mysekurity 05:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - note we have Category:SpongeBob SquarePants Episodes all of which should probably be merged into lists by season. the wub "?/!" 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with that. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pizza delivery. JamesBurns 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• ↑What they said↑ --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. royblumy 00:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Spongebob-cruft as it may be, it's a notable episode, even more notable than some other Spongebob episodes that have their own articles.
• Redirect to Pizza delivery.  Grue  18:56, 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!) 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 60's rioting

This seems almost taken from a syllabus -- although I can't confirm that (tried Googling several parts).

In any case, I think it should be redirected to an existing list. List of riots perhaps.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article is not even about "60's rioting", I don't even know what is attempting to be conveyed. Dcarrano 03:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent bullet list; mostly unrelated to the 1960s. Poorly named title in any case. Kaibabsquirrel 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant. DarthVader 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not needed, unencyclopedic, and Dcarrano's right, it doesn't even stick to the topic it purports to be about. -mysekurity 05:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I'd like to point out the interesting fact that a lot of race riots peculiarly seem to happen in the 1960's, including areas like Malaysia and Singapore. Is it because of the generation born after the awakening at WWII? The Cold War? Of course the article is in a rather poor state, but I'd like to point out this phenomena. -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps with the colonial British gone the Malays and Chinese needed new scapegoats? Even in Malaysia today there is still racism. JamesBurns 06:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: An outline to the subject of US riots and particularly minority/ethnic riots. "Riot" incorporates many majority uprisings, too, you know. All of those American Patriot riots against British rule, the various riots of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc., so this is an attempt at an outline for a lecture (or the notes from a lecture) on race riots in the US in the 1960's. Thus, it's not an article, not properly named, and non-discursive. Geogre 16:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. royblumy 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone close this vote please? -- Natalinasmpf 05:20, 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!) 08:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tv carnage

Basically just an advert JeremyA 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 03:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This doesn't read like an ad to me. It reads like a genuine, if weak, attempt at an article. A TV show that has 4-5 series and 648 Googles just about makes some kind of late-night bar for notability. Needs capitalizing right, though.-Splash 04:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's very late/early here and that was a very stupid vote of me, as Dcarrano has pointed out very nicely. -Splash 04:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, besides description of it as "horribly amazing"... not a TV show, but a series of videotapes. Dcarrano 04:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. What a weird article....:-\ -mysekurity 05:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton brown

Vanity page, hoax. Being edited by several anon editors, one of whom removed {explain-significance}. --bainer (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) delete, what kind of ibanking does he do if he has time to write this nonsense... lots of issues | leave me a message 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page. Jaxl 02:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Obviously not very important with the 'b' of 'brown' not being capitalised. DarthVader 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete 'He also introduced a completely new usage of the profanity fuck, using "fucked" as a synonym for "messed up.' Gosh i always wondered who did that. absolute nonsense.--Porturology 03:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, good point, DarthVader. and i thought i was the one who coined the phrase! ugh! -mysekurity 05:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utter vanity with picture included. --Etacar11 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn vanity --205.203.128.142 14:12, 19 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!) 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hiltyfied.org

Not notable website. Aaron Brenneman 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 02:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, (per above, I guess) -mysekurity 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, promotion, deletion. —Tokek 18:31, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 00:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macro project

By Richard B. Cathcart (thank you for getting an Id, please remember to Log in when you edit). I would call this original research but there isn't any. When you strip off the pretentious language all you are left with is "very large civil engineering projects can have ecological impacts". -- RHaworth 02:02, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

• Delete - not orig research, just blather. Vsmith 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bloviation, POV lacking a P. -EDM 04:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for discussion of future events (I think it's in what Wikipedia is not or something). -mysekurity 05:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• "MACRO-ENGINEERING" should be a separate entry in Wikipedia. "Bloviation" is in the sight of the beholder...commenter above is ignorant of the topic. Surely, the fist paragraph "WORD HISTORY" has some value to Wikipedia's users? After the first paragraphy I simply wished to expound on the topic to inform the uninformed. RBC.
  • RBC has: failed to follow my advice to log in, has failed to indicate whether he is voting to keep or delete, has failed to sign his comment and seems to have forgotten that he has already created macro-engineering (without the horrible capitals). The latter article is almost as bad as macro project - he could not even manage to link it to Candida Oancea Institute - but I will let soneone else put it up for VfD, I think I have been cruel enough to RBC for this month. (To RBC and EDM - what does "bloviation" mean it is not in wikipedia nor in wiktionary.) -- RHaworth 10:43, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
    • Bloviation is speaking or writing pompously and free of content. Hot air. It was popularized by H. L. Mencken. The term fits this article as though it were coined for it, although unlike the present case, normally the bloviator is so absorbed in his own importance that he wouldn't make the effort to be rude to his audience. -EDM 14:09, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence and public policy

Highly charged POV couched in calm language, unlikely to ever be NPOV, and original research. Aaron Brenneman 02:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic personal essay. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to keep. Not knowing much about the subject, I assumed this was an original essay. It probably does need cleanup for possible original research, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is not a personal essay, but rather a planned expansion of the related material in the intelligence, IQ, and race and intelligence articles. All of the material in this article is from published scholarly work. A similar VfD recently failed. --Rikurzhen 02:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me....? Keep. Dcarrano 02:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Acceptable. Not original research. DarthVader 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above, doesn't seem to have anything seriously wrong with it. Jaxl 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article needs a thorough POV check but is a valid topic. Kaibabsquirrel 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was using the phrase "original research" as per No original research with regards to 'synthesizes work in a non-standard way' as well as 'introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article'. It, in conjunction with the other article Race and intelligence by this same author that recently passed VfD, begin to present a disturbing trend that seems to violate Not a soapbox. Please note that the above the fold here contains, "A large body of research indicates that intelligence varies between individuals and, to a lesser extent, between racial groups." How is that relevant to this article? Why has the author chosen to include that? This article is well written and referenced, but that is not the criterion for inclusion. Perhaps I am being melodramatic, perhaps I'm not demonstrating faith. But I highly recomend that anyone who choses to vote on this make a careful reading of the text, examine other contributions by this user (and by me, for that matter) and think carefully before you vote. Just as you should do every time, of course. Aaron Brenneman 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As I saw it, the reason the reference to racial groups is made is because IQ tests seem to favor certain racial groups; thus, policy that is based on IQ scores is going to run into racial discrimination problems. I definitely think that it's POV to say "intelligence varies between racial groups," as this implies that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, which is far from an accepted fact. But, putting POV issues aside as of course is appropriate in VfD discussion, I do believe an NPOV article on this subject is possible, just like it is possible with Race and intelligence. Probably a nightmare to actually make it happen, but, oh well. We have to believe in the process. Dcarrano 04:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's right; race is only mentioned because it is a primary topic in the debate, has been a subject of two Civil Rights Acts and a Supreme Court decision, and remains an active area of cognitive research and policy debate today. While I cannot countenance Aaron's suspicion, I do support his prescription. Read carefully. --DAD ^T 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not original research if it describes published scholarly work, which the material in this article is. Check the references. This professor has written pretty extensively on this topic. --Rikurzhen 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing wrong with the topic, the writing is sourced and better than most such articles, and even if what is presumably being targeted as objectionable is deleted or modified encyclopedic content would remain. -EDM 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I suppose, there's probably a Wiki-article in this. Note however, that merely including a list of references doesn't count. The text and the claims in it need to be related directly to one or more of those references. References are not for saying "look, I'm not the only one doing this so let me have an article", they are for saying "look, this is a verifiable fact, and it comes from here". -Splash 04:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahem, I read it again. For the most part, the claims are from the references. Not in the whole part though, but that's no worse than most articles we have here. Still, my point about references is true, imho. -Splash 04:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't contribute to this article, but I notice it's only 2 hours old, so we can probably expect tightening up of the finer points in the future. --Rikurzhen 04:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Definately needs a POV cleanup tho. -mysekurity 05:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is brand-new, concerns a subject that is widely researched, and will benefit from Wikipedia community efforts. Disclaimer: I drafted the article. --DAD ^T 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Interesting topic. JamesBurns 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Hiding 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly encyclopedic, if edited somewhat. Strong keepDjadek 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In what way is an article entitled Intelligence and public policy encyclopedic? I could write a huge article on the stregths and weaknesses of policy issues from government's around the world, and the intelligence involved in creating them, but that's way too broad. The title is broad and meaningless. Unencyclopedic. Hiding 18:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is about intelligence as a subject of public policy, not the role of intelligence in crafting public policy. --Rikurzhen 18:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your description is way too broad. The scope of the article is much narrower than your comment suggests. The article, a planned expansion of related material in other articles as indicated in the second vote above, focuses explicitly on public policies which specifically regard intelligence testing (e.g. employment law and disparate impact), intelligence measures (e.g. execution of low-IQ criminals), or correlates for which a significant and specific debate exists regarding the role of intelligence (e.g. achievement gaps and No Child Left Behind). The article's title reflects the commonly used terms; that it can be read too broadly is a common problem with titles, and misunderstanding should be quickly dispatched by the article's content, which is quite focused. --DAD ^T 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. The title is broad and meaningless, and so unencyclopedic, and the content POV or at best poorly mistitled, since many states do not even entertain execution and all the examples seem to be U.S. based. The content would thus still be unencyclopedic as surely it's a thesis. Hiding 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Restriction to US is hardly grounds for deletion. Specific policies cited in the article are US-only yet have their own WP pages. "...since many states do not even entertain execution" -- this is a red herring, since the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue and created a US-wide law. "Surely its a thesis" -- given the citations, one can verify quite easily that it's not a thesis. WP editors are invited to do so. The charge of POV is of course fair, though as many voters have noted, need for POV cleanup does not imply need for deletion. Similarly, the request for a more specific title and the vote to delete seem quite disparate. --DAD ^T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
          • You seriously espect me to believe a thesis doesn't cite? And there's no disparity. Delete and start again. Hiding 07:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs some editing with an eye to NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete. Was leaning towards keep until I actually read the article. What a bunch of speculative, mis-informed, US-centric tripe. Definately NOT encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Which parts are you referring to? --Rikurzhen 21:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Try these: All military recruits take the Armed Forces Qualification Test, what, everywhere? and The present article covers particular policies and policy areas, generally in the US. A self referring article as well no less. Also, at the very least it has to be Western in bias, and therefore unencyclopedic, since the scope of the article's title will not allow anything less than a broad meaningless overview of all policies, all government and all examinations of intelligence. The only true content on this page would surely have to be something akin to some people think public policy in some parts of the world is designed to discriminate in some way on the issue of intelligence, which may possibly be measured in certain ways, but then again may not, and other people may disagree, whilst in other parts of the world people don't even recognise these as issues. Hiding 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Which part of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy does that satisfy? Maybe you'd like to opt for an NPOV tag/discussion instead. --Rikurzhen 23:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • "The only true content on this page"...fascinating. I stipulate that the Supreme Court rulings, the discussion of disparate impact, the No Child Left Behind law, the quote from Murphy, the citations attributed to Gottfredson, the statement regarding cognitive ability testing's status as the single best predictor of job performance, the reference to the theory of situational specificity, and the statement regarding the AFQT (when properly restricted to the US military) are all verifiable, among (many) others. Please, don't take my word for it; verify. Moreover, the claim that an article must cover all policies, all governments and all examinations of intelligence is pure opinion (and prima facie difficult to swallow, IMHO); WP policy stipulates no such thing. The article is the proper place for material on other countries' policies as well. As the article is roughly 24 hours old, it can hardly be faulted for being a bit drafty. You're invited to flesh it out -- verifiably, of course. --DAD ^T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course, some of these statements regardless of their verifiability need to be limited or qualified in various ways. For instance, the statement that cognitive ability testing is the single best predictor of job performance: what were the other predictors against which it was tested? Obviously, not all possible ones. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
          • That's true. In this case the statement is part of a direct quote. Also, similar statements appear widely in the literature (and the Hunter and Hunter paper cited is among the seminal primary references for it); the statement represents the consensus position among experts. Perhaps the tweak you're looking for is "best single predictor known" which for experts is perhaps implicit. For the curious (and this is not meant to be a defense of the article, only a response to the comment) cognitive ability testing has been compared to job interviews, job experience, biographical inventory, education, age, personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, and a host of other predictors; in most cases, and particularly for medium- to high-complexity jobs, nothing else comes close to IQ testing in predictive validity. --DAD ^T 15:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Disgruntled Keep. I don't like this article, but don't feel up to becoming a part of the monstrosity of an edit war I forsee happening, but anyway my call's that it's not original research, and that's really the only thing from the deletion policy that I think would cover this. The Literate Engineer 04:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ok, here's a big serve of humble pie, fresh from the oven: I made a mistake. This was not a valid nomination for deletion. As it is rude to talk with your mouth full, I'll stop talking now. Aaron Brenneman 06:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly a very important topic. Can and has been studied scientifically, like in the Copenhagen Consensus. Is extremely centered on the US right now, which should be corrected, if possible. There should also be much more emphasis on the many ways in which IQ scores may be improved, especially in the developing world. Ultramarine 20:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. For those not watching the page, significant non-US content has been added recently in the Health and Nutrition section. --DAD ^T 18:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm clueless as to how a VfD is closed out. It appears that active discussion has largely wound down and that consensus has emerged. I cannot speak for other editors, but I am grateful for the helpful comments; the article is already better for them. --DAD ^T 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • They get evaluated by an admin and closely periodically. --Rikurzhen 23:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important topic carefully and articulated explored, if in a somewhat POV way. carmeld1 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep: This could become a very useful reference article, a hallmark of what the Wikipedia is all about. The issue strikes to the heart of matters related to man-made disasters and the Peter principle. So long as public administrators continue to veer toward 'no child left behind'-esque lowest common denominator policies, then all the more thought provoking counterbalances need to be added. David Keirsey has found slight IQ differences along the four parameters of temperament, and it might be noted that the non-linear conjunctive traits, INFP, are the ones his research found to have to one to three point higher IQs, in comparison to the more linear, disjunctive traits, ESTJ. The upshot is that education and politics tend towards anti-intellectual discrimination against those who find it uncomfortable to toe the establishment line. Ombudsman 04:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cryptoracist POV. 172 12:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • IMHO, that a very unhelpful opinion. In the U.S. population, most variation in IQ occurs (1) within familes and (2) between families of the same race and social class. Claiming that discussion of this topic is racist is like claiming that a discussion of poverty is racist. --Rikurzhen 23:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Intelligence research doesn't intrinsically qualify for deletion. Nectarflowed ^T 01:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Please cleanup and head the topic so the article's import is apparant at its outset. Amicuspublilius 23:07, 19 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!) 08:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anderhage Incentive

A secret society that seems so secret that I can't find any verifiable information about it. Almost identical information at Rostrum Campus. Joyous (talk) 02:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• "We are a covert anti-terrorist team that is so secret, when we snap our fingers NOTHING HAPPENS." (Face/Off) 10 non-WP google hits (most of which look like mirrors) = hoax or non-notable conspiracy theory = Delete. Dcarrano 02:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable if not a hoax. DarthVader 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DarthVader. -mysekurity 05:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same as above Djadek 08:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article admits to being unverifiable.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Nonsense. "Greek Emperor Nero?" West Sweden? All records lost? It's supposed to be funny, I think, but is too bathetic to manage it. Geogre 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax. Anything so secret no one knows about it doesn't belong here. --Etacar11 23:53, 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 three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AngelBear

and Angelbear and Angel Bear (All three the same content)

Seems to be a hoax/joke. Zero hits for Angel Bear "Ursus Angelus". Sample from the article: "The North American Angel Bear (Ursus Angelus Americanus), most commonly referred to as Ann Marie, injests large amounts of honey and other sweet items to help match her personality."--sounds pretty joke-y. Niteowlneils 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, joke, vanity, or some combination of the three. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax. DarthVader 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Android. -mysekurity 05:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Kid (self-)tribute. Geogre 18:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless vanity listing. Duckorange 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could have been speedied. Binadot 03:48, 19 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 --Allen3 ^talk 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CastleCops

This article was created by two (possibly one, as one is anonymous) known link spammers, one of which (User:Zhen-Xjell) works for the website in the article. Both editors have link spammed to this website on several articles. The article itself may be link spam. LGagnon 02:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Authors aside, this is still nn website vanity. No real proof of why it needs to be here. -mysekurity 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi'ya, thanks for the comment. I found some time today to check out some more pages and found Wikipedia:Websites, of course it is a proposal. But interestingly enough, I did not know a page like this existed Wikipedia:Google_test, which is where the previous article's Talk page took me. Is that the page typically used in such VfD discussions? I never knew that the team effort of the Wikipedia was so precise and professional. I'm very impressed. TIA--Paul Laudanski 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. CastleCops, along with several other security sites, was the target of SLAPP-like cease and desist activity on the part of the authors of iDownload spyware [5] [6]. The site is also relatively notable in the anti-spyware community; however, I don't think that makes it sufficiently notable on either account to be worth a Wikipedia article, especially if vastly larger sites like SecurityFocus aren't here too. --FreelanceWizard 10:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this does beat the five-issue webcomics but still doesn't rise to notability requirement for websites, when WP's systematic bias towards Internet/computing is considered. Dcarrano 13:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article strongly appears to be an instance of abusing Wikipedia to direct traffic (or, more likely, search engine results) to a site. --FOo 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  BTW -- User:Zhen-Xjell signs his posts "Paul Laudanski", which is the name of the owner of the site in question, according to the WHOIS record. --FOo 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  My vote to delete is withdrawn. I now vote Keep, as it seems clear that the editor in question is well-intentioned and not interested in spamming us. --FOo 02:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi folks, I am the author of this article (and make no attempt to hide who I am as owner of the WHOIS record for CastleCops) and was on the road when I couldn't log in to my account. I apologize if it makes me a "link spammer", however that was not my intention. In the past I stumbled upon some articles like Proxomitron. I knew the author and he hosted the Proxomitron forum at CC. Since then I made minor modifications in the past at Wikipedia, but did not start really participating until recently when reading other articles about computer security. These articles contained links to other similar sites and thought I'd enter in CC links as well. I also noticed at least one of these similar sites had their own stub page, and figured why not put something up for CC? I have read the policies (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, WP:NOT, et al) on spamming just now and Wikipedia:Vanity versus Wikipedia:Importance. Certainly this discussion and outcome will give me a practical example of what is WP permissible. In reference to the computer security articles I have modified, yes they contained links to CC, but those links were in my humble opinion noteworthy and useful. I did add other links to Sunbelt, Spywareinfo, Microsoft, and elsewhere -- some of which were also removed by others. I will of course oblige with whatever outcome admin decides, however, I would ask that the information I added in all the articles that were reverted be inspected for importance and value. I have read many comments in the VfD log section make mention of global reach (Google, Alexa, et al), I also ask that admin query the same -- the results (at least in my very humble opinion) indicate there is no reason for me to "link spam". Rather, my intent was to offer the reader as much information as possible. Certainly, an example is Spyware where I added a "Research" section with links to live database lists for processes, startups, services, spyware/adware, et al. I'd hate to see useful information removed (other articles I edited, and not the topic of this discussion) just because of little ole me. Thanks for your time, I hope this answers any and all questions. Paul Laudanski 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have gone over why your links count as link spam on both your talk page and Talk:Spyware. As for the other sites you linked to, you gave very few of them (none in equal amounts to your site's links) and, as the person who has been cleaning up the link spam, I did not delete those links. What I deleted was a bunch of additions you made in the References section of the Spyware article that looked suspect (as you added citations for them that went nowhere). -- LGagnon 03:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Thanks for your prompt reply. I have thus replied in Talk:Spyware in reference to "citations" explaining my Wiki code ignorance. Curiously, which links in References were "suspect"? I appreciate the passion and willingness you and anyone else has to discuss these things with me. --Paul Laudanski 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough Google hits to be notable. Should be written more neutrally though. -- RainR 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. May I ask for some suggestions on how/where to make the article more neutral? I apologize in advance if this is not the best place to ask.--Paul Laudanski 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Major example, the last sentence in the community section. Not enough linking to other Wiki articles. Also, try to include factual information: who runs it, what software it runs, specific dates. Using O* codes in the Wiki without explaing them there may be bad form. -- RainR 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll start making adjustments. Although, anything you or anyone else sees please feel free to hop right in. I love the whole concept of Wiki and its collaborative approach.--Paul Laudanski 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Phrases like "what is hot and what is not", "and more" usually aren't found in a neutrally written article. Some of the product namings read like name-dropping; unless you're an official site for them or they're your main focus, probably don't list them. Calling a lawsuit a SLAPP is a point of view that a lawsuit is without merit (and also if I understand correctly, no lawsuit was actually filed) -- RainR 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment. Ok thanks again. Will go make the changes. As to the SLAPP comment, I was working off the reply from User:FreelanceWizard, but you do have a point. Some of those product namings we are official for, so I'll keep them?--Paul Laudanski 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Comment. Keep the bit about the Cease and Desist. The coverage it got is one of the things that makes the site notable. Just word it in a neutral way.-- RainR 07:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment. Ok, I'll add that back in and make an attempt right now. Thanks! --Paul Laudanski 13:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
                • I've added it back and removed the SLAPP reference, rearranged the first sentence, and removed the "and more" comment at the end. How is that? TIA--Paul Laudanski 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Hi'ya, a thought just came to mind. I was putting this article together when I recalled the DDoS from last year that Netcraft picked up. I don't think it has WP merit, but thought I'd ask. Thoughts?--Paul Laudanski 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a pop-up advertisement or spam e-mail. Arevich 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi and thanks for the feedback. This VfD has taught me so much: I was reading some more of the Policies and Guidelines like Wikipedia:Writers_rules_of_engagement, Wikipedia:Welcome,_newcomers, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette which quite amazingly are very informative and have helped me better understand WP. Hence, I want to say that it was my good faith intention to share useful and important information rather than be viewed as advertisement or spam. May I ask what your thoughts are exactly on how to make it a better article? I'm currently working on User:RainR's suggestions above.--Paul Laudanski 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious vanity and advertising. --Xperment 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Well written, but no encyclopedic value; just advertising -- lucio 08:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi Lucio, question, what are your recommendations on making it have encyclopedic value?--Paul Laudanski 16:04, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EbolaWorld

EbolaWorld is not a very well-known websbite; for example, looking up "Taco-Man", or "The George Bush Show" do not display any pages on ebolaworld.com Gafaddict 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment . The Alexa rank for their website is 417,000, and they get 9440 Googles on just their name. Most of these appear to be hobby-sites, however. If someone filters through the Googles and shows me where they have come to considerable media attention I might vote keep. -Splash 04:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm with Splash. I'm kinda leaning towards weak delete, but I can be swayed either way, with enough background. -mysekurity 05:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just another website. Dcarrano 13:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inasmuch as Wikipedia is not a web guide, a site needs to not only be popular, but actually a leader in some respect for me to believe that it requires coverage. The more susceptible to time the site is, the less we need it. Geogre 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* they have had several shows on flashplayer.com, such as the george bush showJCS 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* The website is very good and obviously destined for success. Ebolaworld's Michael Jackson cartoons have been featured on atomfilms. Newgrounds puts ebolaworld cartoons on the front page everytime they are submitted. One of its series recently won 3 different categories in the animation magazine pitch party contest.(http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=4200). The George Bush Show was featured in a holiday issue of Hustler magazine in 2003. --Adamcik 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: This vote is Adamcik's only edit --Allen3 ^talk 11:22, July 23, 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!) 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruairí

A dicdef of an Irish word. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 03:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictionary definition. DarthVader 03:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Jaxl 03:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. -mysekurity 05:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digestif

A dicdef of an French (and English? Sounds familiar, but doesn't matter since it's a dicdef either way) word. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 03:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictionary definition. DarthVader 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Jaxl 03:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already transwikified. -mysekurity 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT This is an English word, meaning an alcholic beverage taken after meals. 67.68.64.81 09:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable class of drinks. Kappa 15:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is a dictdef. The deletion guidelines are unambiguous. A definition of "software" would also be a delete. Geogre 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd love to see that vfd. Why don't you see if you can persuade the folks voting "keep" on splash conception to change their minds, according to the unambiguous guidelines. Kappa 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Granted, there are people who are encouraging people to totally forget about the deletion guidelines by insisting that they should not apply to whole classes of things, like schools, but that does not change the policy. It only makes those people untrustworthy. Dictionary definitions are out. Dictionaries are not encyclopedias. That is totally unambiguous. However, don't let that stop you from arguing passionately that nothing should be deleted. Geogre 00:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you didn't respond to counterexamples with personal attacks and misrepresentations. Kappa 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you feel that those comments applied to you and that you felt that they were attacks. I wholeheartedly encourage people who disagree with deletion existing as a function of the site to try to get the policy changed. I wholeheartedly discourage people who do not get the policy changed to decide to disrupt deliberations by voting without regard to the policies. Geogre 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am not one of the people who believe that "nothing should be deleted" so your comments are misdirected. Kappa 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per 67.68.64.81. Almafeta 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef CDC (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef unless made into an encyclopedia article. -- Jonel | Speak 02:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Digestive. Radiant_>|< 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• These topics are unrelated. Kappa 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 00:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic topic. VfD is not cleanup.  Grue  19:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand beyond a definition. See apéritif for comparison.  The Steve  06:34, July 15, 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!) 08:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original four

Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 03:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No doubt that this is vanity. DarthVader 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Jaxl 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unquestionably vanity, and nn vanity at that. Plus the fact that they referenced future events, a no-no. -mysekurity 05:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Four people who think that inventing a collective name for themselves is all it takes for them to be notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is the kind of thing we should be able to speedy. the wub "?/!" 08:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Mrendo 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• The hopes, the dreams, the naivette, the innocence...it brings an honest, unjaded tear to my eye. Delete for the glaringly obvious reason (vanity) and for making me cry. Geogre 18:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See the proposals at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I had come across this I would probably have userfied it and deleted the link. It's rather nice but not encyclopedic. Not worth discussion either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment (Magic: The Gathering)

This page was VfD'd June 25 with the following vote by User:Zantastik, but it was never listed. Completing the nomination. No vote. -- Grev -- Talk 03:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Magic: The Gathering -- Zantastik talk 07:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This should be merged with Magic: The Gathering. DarthVader 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is this not simply another 'expansion set', as listed here: Magic:_The_Gathering_sets#Expansion_sets? What of: Torment_(Magic:_The_Gathering) and Onslaught_(Magic:_The_Gathering)? Surely this can potentially be expanded to the extent of many of the other 'expansion set' articles. That is of course not to mention the complications of merging an infoboxed article with the main article. Seeaxid 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Seeaxid. Good point. -mysekurity 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Existing Wikipolicy on M:tG expansions seems to be to give each their own page, as evidenced by the fact that most of them have their own articles (and at least one of those articles, the Legions page, is literally a one-line substub). In short, there's a precedent for keeping it, and while that precedent may not be smart, I don't think this is the place to overturn it. Marblespire 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this to my attention. DarthVader 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep(<-- See below). That's to some extent what I was saying, but it seems I was misinterpreted. Oh well, Seeaxid 12:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Sets in order of release:
  • Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • Legends (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • The Dark created May 2005
  • Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Fallen Empires created May 2005
  • Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Homelands (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Mirage, Visions and Weatherlight do not seem to have articles.

And so on... obviously the idea of "Existing Wikipolicy" is kind of an odd thing in the face of such new (and sometimes non-existing) articles. -Harmil 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I sincerely fail to grasp what contention you are making. Seeaxid 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep--individual sets are notable (the same is not true for most individual cards). Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, potential for expansion. Kappa 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir all, or have one single article for all MTG card sets. Also, if it's unlikely to be included in Wikipedia 1.0, why go on at length? My ass has "potential for expansion"--doesn't make it encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Harmil. Almafeta 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Bound 23:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Zero significance outside of the game itself. -R. fiend 03:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Yet there are about a bajillion articles with: "Zero significance outside of the game itself" about Pokémon to be found here: Category:Pokémon. They are all connected through categories. If this were to be merged, would it not be appropriate to also merge all of the other 'expansion sets' (or even all of the articles in the Category:Magic: The Gathering which have "Zero significance outside of the game itself"). Yet merging all of them would be utterly impractical as the page would end up so enormously large and cluttered. Furthermore, already at the top of Magic: The Gathering it is said: "This page is 37 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." So while it may seem more appropriate to have all of the information about every one distinct topic each in their own single article, for topics which a large amount of information, this is simply impractical. Seeaxid 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, but if merged, merge to an article on the expansion sets, not to the main article, which is large enough already. -Sean Curtin 06:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but merge to one article per triad of sets (they release one major and two minor sets in sequence, all three in the same world). Radiant_>|< 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough, not running out of paper. Unfocused 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. If the article is merged, would have to merge all expansion articles, bloating the main Magic article. GeeJo 05:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging all the expansion article in to a single expansion article might solve that problem. -R. fiend 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Or it may give a slighlty less gigantic article. Many of the other expansion set articles have much information in them, this one, as a few of the other ones, does not. However, does it not seem logical that this article has potential to expand to the extent of some of the larger expansion set articles, for example, Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering)?
    • Besides, isn't this votes for deletion. Wouldn't it be better to propose merging them here: Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets Seeaxid 09:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Personally, keeping the system as is, and Radiant!'s idea of merging them in triads, seem the most logical, but, I really think its pertinent to take the discussion to Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets (I don't think this is an appropriate place to discuss it) or if not that, then we should keep and expand. Seeaxid 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  Actually, perhaps it would be better to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, that is to say, that such an action would probably be in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, and let me quote: "the goal is to create articles on each and every Magic: The Gathering set."(my bold). This "vote" does not belong here, it should be discussed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Seeaxid 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Expansion sets have enough notable material to belong in their own pages. Abitrarily merging some seems counterintuitive. -- Norvy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  One doesn't even need a 'vfd' to have an article merged, perhaps Wikipedia:request for comment would have been more appropriate. Seeaxid 08:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand.  Grue  19:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is WoTC's core business, and each MTG set is the same as a publisher printing a best-selling book or album.  The Steve  06:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: This discussion, as Seeaxid said, does not belong here. Current policy is to eventually have a well-developed page for each expansion set. Andrew Levine 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Many of the M:tG expansions have well developed pages and this one just needs a little love. -- Nis81 13:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Most of the expansions seem to have pages, and this doesn't seem much different from having an article on a best-selling book Salsb 20:58, 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!) 08:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xhavok

Vanity Page Atratus 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. DarthVader 04:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete irc-cruft vanity. -Splash 04:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delte: vanity.— Seeaxid 05:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with Splash. -mysekurity 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Deletevanity, only 29 Google hits MLSfreak777

• At present, vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD and note additionally that out-of-process changes have recently been made to these (though they still don't include vanity) -Splash 15:15, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nightly.net

Article doesn't establish notability, it just has a lot of message board politics and such. Alexa traffic rank 104,302. Wikipedia is not a web directory. TheCoffee 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Dcarrano 04:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -Splash 04:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, too much politics but nightly IS one of the oldest online SW communities. -Klestrob44 05:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:20, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kahn's Law

Original research? "Kahn's law" gets 72 Google hits, none of which seem to be related. This is the only article by the author. TheCoffee 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 04:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten into an encyclopedic article on the main Google hit; "that the effectiveness of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of participants and the time spent deliberating". I doubt that an encyc article exists in the future for that, however. But I do wonder how it might apply to VfD... -Splash 04:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student neologism. JamesBurns 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable law. Don't even know if the law is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 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!) 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E5_Series_Shinkansen

There is no such train as the E5 series, and so this page can only be considered a hoax. Dave 04:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trusting the user above (Dave), this is a hoax. DarthVader 05:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with above. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is indeed No Such Train. - Thatdog 08:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:21, 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 Userfy. Scimitar ^parley 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Illustrating a point

Contentless WP:POINT Whig 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I totally don't understand what point this is trying to make. It doesn't really make sense (but wait, is that a bureaucrat who wrote it?). And I'm not aware of any stub notices we use on Wikipedia namespace pages. In any case, I don't think deletion is the way to go. It needs time to be proposed as policy, or whatever the author was intending to do with this (which I'd like to hear). Userfy for now. --Dmcdevit 04:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy with haste. Bureaucrat or not, this has no business in articleWikipedia: space yet! -Splash 04:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy (I guess). As in: move to a subpage of his userpage -mysekurity 05:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out to Splash that this is not in the article space, but the Wikipedia space. Still userfying is the way to go. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, you are quite right. The trouble with editing past dawn. Comment corrected. -Splash 13:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with WP:POINT if the definition is really considered necessary. Otherwise, delete. --FreelanceWizard 10:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Violation of WP:POINT. ~~~~ 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Violation of WP:POINT. JamesBurns 10:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redir to WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 13:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete COULD be a violation of WP:POINT, except I can't see that a point is being made. Friday 14:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - what exactly is being disrupted here? People throw around WP:POINT way too liberally. --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being. User:Ed Poor had previously left a note in his summary when he added "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Illustrating a point" to the WP:POINT which read "which I shall now write - bear with me" [7]. It's clear that this is a work in progress, trying to create a "Lead by Example" proposal. Also, three people, including the VfD creator, have voted delete, stating that this was in violation of WP:POINT. Could these people please explain what they meant by this? What point is Ed trying to prove? I don't see how suggesting that people lead by example could possibly be in violation of anything at all. — Asbestos | Talk 13:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not done developing this. Stubs aren't supposed to be deleted simply because they are short. "I'm about to use this article to make a point, er, I mean ILLUSTRATE a point." There are many ways you can simultaneously (a) do something constructive and (b) use it as an example to teach somebody. "Here, let me show you what I mean." This is the opposite of disrupting to make a point: it's using an example of something good to encourage others to do good. Why is this so hard to understand? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FINISHED WRITING THE ARTICLE YET. I've been busy:
  1. Mediating
  2. Getting new features into the software
  3. Defending NPOV policy
  4. Helping clueless newbies
  5. Stopping personal attacks

If you didn't like the article, why didn't you leave me a note on my user talk page, instead of vfd'ing behind my back? And before you say "the rules permit it", let me remind you about Wikipedia:gaming the system. Uncle Ed 18:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Not gaming anything, I think the article is inappropriate in Wikispace at least in its present form. Please feel free to Userfy it yourself and develop it into something worthwhile. No personal insult intended. Whig 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • None taken. Thanks. All I ask, is that if someone userfies it, they leave a note somewhere so I can find it. Uncle Ed 12:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. If you aren't done, why is it linked from WP:POINT? As is, I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. Superm401 | Talk 18:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weeman the fisherman

It looks like a hoax and gets no hits on Google:[8] Seeaxid 04:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
"'Do not delete'" This is legit User:CitadelWeeman05 05:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC) (No such user, edit actually by article creator 67.172.181.134)

Delete Well i did put it up for deletion Jobe6 04:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 05:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn if not a hoax. --Etacar11 00:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable at best, hoax at worst. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Based on real life events involving two college students from both coasts taunting each other over a girl SilverSnake020

• The only edits by Silversnake020 (talk · contribs) are to this page. --Etacar11 18:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• This user has also vandalized this page and my and Trovatore's user pages. --Etacar11 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per other delete votes. --Trovatore 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. Thue | talk 19:33, 22 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 --Allen3 ^talk 00:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah nashold

While probably true, this does not appear to meet any standards of notability. Looks like vanity. A google search only turns up her resume, and other non-notable references. Delete. Dmcdevit 04:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn vanity. Orphaned, so not really needed. -mysekurity 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 00:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep She is not famous yet, but wearable computers, her main field, is about to explode, the use of wearable technology in dance (her other field) could get very big and her work in both fields is excellent.see http://ambint.com/LNCS1/preface-toc.pdf (Unsigned vote by Mickeyyahoo (talk · contribs))

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!) 08:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General any topic

Doesn't establish notability. Nothing links to it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Alexa ranking 927,588. TheCoffee 05:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, why do people put so much effort into this forumcruft? the wub "?/!" 08:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 14:11, 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!) 09:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Phillips

Autobiography. Delete as vanity Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn vanity. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. DarthVader 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Claims subject exhibited at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. If this can be verified it would make him notable. Pburka 23:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/self-promotion, google hits just say he gave talks at these places, I think. Doesn't make him a notable artist, in my opinion. --Etacar11 00:32, 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 (no consensus). There are some merge votes, but they don't specify a target. Therefore, I will just call this one an outright keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Gak

A band who only played one show and that was at a party? Sounds like a glorified jam session - clearly non-notable, despite the obvious notability of participants XmarkX 05:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, an improvised band that existed for a few hours. --TheMidnighters 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable jam. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see this as a band page at all, and once again I feel I need to ask JamesBurns: what is your threshold for a notable jam? A major event with unarguable super-stars of corporate rock isn't notable? Pray, what is? Elvis returning from the dead to jam with the Statue of Liberty?!

This event was clearly an item for the rock-n-roll history books even if you don't like these performers (as I do not). -Harmil 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That wouldnt be notable - it wouldnt be true. Everyone knows that Elvis is alive and working at my local burger franchise, so he couldnt possibly be dead. JamesBurns 06:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Everything celebrities do is not inherently worthy of an encyclopedia article, and I just don't see the possibility of expanding this to be a real article. The info can be added to the real bands/performers articles under "trivia." Soundguy99 14:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Soundguy99. Dcarrano 14:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere or keep, notable incident. Kappa 15:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely a stick-on keeper jamesgibbon 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "the gak" hetfield gets only 5 hits, including WP mirrors. The jam may be notable somewhere (probably a la Soundguy99), but this name seems to be a non-notable neologism. Niteowlneils 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one show? --Carnildo 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely notable band members. Pburka 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge one night that doesn't need it's own article. --Etacar11 00:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 13:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence for continued existance of this band. Yes, members are notable, but this doesn't make everything they do automatically notable. Friday 14:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC]. Since we cannot merge and redirect to each notable member, it should be kept as small article. A small article such as this can be mentioned in each participant's page. This is an example of where a "perfect article" in Wikipedia would necessarily be very small. Unfocused 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge somewhere. Despite the notability of the participants, event doesn't warrant its own article. carmeld1 00:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC.  Grue  19:10, 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 REDIRECT. Jinian 20:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American political shift

Article is a dicdef and there is no evidence that the meaning of the term is what the article says. "American political shift" can mean anything. Yahoo search on "American political shift" with the quotes returns 11 hits of which 4 are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, and the other 7 have no relation at all to the definition given in the article. Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I heard about this before; perhaps it should get a clearer name, but I think we should definately keep and expand it. Djadek 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--2 reasons. First of all, this isn't an actual term used in political science or history, it's a neologism--the search engine results show this, and I've never heard it despite a political science degree and years of inspired nerdiness. Secondly, it grossly oversimplifies a hundred years of U.S. history, and is thus quite inaccurate. I would vote keep if this were a notable inaccuracy, but it is not. Meelar (talk) 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism; Merge into Politics of the United States, which does have historical info such as this. Dcarrano 14:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Realignment. Don't merge, this info is covered better elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Redirect to realignment which is the common name for this subject. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support a redirect as suggested by Christopher Parham and Capitalistroadster. Note: Realignment actually redirects to Realigning election right now. Kaibabsquirrel 00:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, shouldn't the article be called 'American realignment'?80.61.232.49 09:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Eventually the page might warrant being broken up, but right now it's best to keep them in one place, since all the examples provide additional context to each other. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:07, 2005 July 12 (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!) 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom gaffe

Doesn't sound particularly notable. Greatest claim to fame seems to be managing a youth venue somewhere. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: nn vanity. -mysekurity 07:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. the wub "?/!" 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete same as above Djadek 09:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure he does good work, but nn. --Etacar11 00:48, 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!) 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GTA: San Andreas Guide

An attempt to write a video game guide. Not an encyclopedic topic, but the author might want to look into Wikibooks. Don't know if they accept video game guides. Rhobite 06:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Kaibabsquirrel 06:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark 06:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I would have voted to transwiki to Wikibooks, but there are about ten different guides on Wikibooks on various parts of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Cyclone49 06:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cyclone49. I have personally seen the books, in response to Rhobite. Perhaps Thankingcobra would like to look there? (and maybe at some of the wikitutorials?). -mysekurity 07:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, GameFAQs calling? --Madchester 07:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the wikibooks already exist and this adds nothing to them yet. Gently inform author about Wikibooks and why game guides don't belong here.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pending creation of a WikiGamer project. Almafeta 21:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - Agent003

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 userfy, presumably, make this the userpage of User:RyanSaotome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Saotome

Vanity, created by user:RyanSaotome. Not notable, see also Wikipedia:Autobiography.Thue | talk 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. I also sugguest said subject move article to his own userpage, where it would be better served, as he currently lacks one, it would be a much more appropriate place for such an article. -mysekurity 07:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Suggestion by Mysekurity is a good idea. DarthVader 07:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy per Mysekurity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Has edited some other articles afterwards, so not here just for just the vanity. Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy That's what user pages are for. --JB Adder | Talk 11:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Dcarrano 14:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy that's what it's for. --Etacar11 00:49, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M.R.M. Parrott

Appears to be reproduce article, but some time has passed.

• Please see discussion which refers to another VfD. Has he become notable enough since then?
• Please vote based only upon his notability, not his likability.
• And, uncharacteristically enough - Abstain.
  

Aaron Brenneman 06:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (Parott, if you read this, have you considered moving the information to your user page?) Djadek 09:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep JamesBurns, someday I'd like to know your specific threshold for non-notable. That aside, MRM is notable at least in terms of one of his books. -Harmil 11:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • My threshhold is the same for most users that appear not to agree with your stand on this ie. Djadek and Dcarrano so far. JamesBurns 06:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I don't believe he is... Djadek 15:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Not everyone who fancies themselves an author and/or gets a book published should be on WP. This fella appears to have only one book on Amazon, and it's ranked #2,279,737. Seems like a smart dude, but, delete, unless there's some proof that anyone is really buying these books. Dcarrano 20:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 

The article is about a character that is only used in Macintosh computers. Even the title is not properly visible on non-Macintosh computers. Useless article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Apple Symbols (typeface). This can be counted as a Delete, if needed. Delete. --Blu Aardvark 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This page isn't relevant to that article. The Apple Symbols (typeface) article is about a specific font which provides a wide variety of previously unusable symbols to Mac users. The "Apple" symbol is a character which is available in a large number of Macintosh fonts, but is not present in "Apple Symbols". --Murgatroyd 07:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. OK. Change to delete, then. --Blu Aardvark 07:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article title is in the Unicode private use area, and so its appearance depends entirely on what font you're using (I see it as a Euro symbol with an extra line). It's completely worthless as a redirect, since nobody who isn't using a Mac will be able to type it. --Carnildo 07:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Macincruft. - Thatdog 08:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The private use Unicode sequence for "Apple logo" is "F000". I'm not sure what this one is, but it's certainly non-notable. -Harmil 11:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it is not. Per ROMAN.TXT, the relevant official document. David Remahl 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. Neither IE nor Firefox on most PCs can understand the symbol (I just see a question mark). However, if there's a relevent article, I think it should re-direct, as I can imagine other Mac users typing the symbol into the search box to see if there's a relevent article (and to test Wikipedia's capabilities). — Asbestos | Talk 14:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to some generic Mac article somewhere jamesgibbon 15:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• This does not look like it can be expanded so its probably a dicdef. Either transwiki or redirect. Vegaswikian 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect so noone will have trouble seeing an interrogative mark on a PC, and Mac Users curious to see something about  will have a redirect. ATMB 12:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Apple typography#The Apple logo which describes the codepoint's use on the Mac platform. This could be reevaluated if other significant uses of the same codepoint are identified. Carnillo: No, it is not completely useless since people who are using a Mac will be able to type it. This is in line with the policy on redirects (i.e. "if someone may find it useful") David Remahl 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect. No non-Mac computer can render this, unless you install the Mac version of whatever your default OpenType font (such as Times New Roman or, in this case, Arial), and even that manual quick-fix locks out Linux, Unix, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the URL. Say I link a friend to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EF%A3%BF. ooooh yeah, they're really gonna want to click on a link that looks like geek crap. This page would be fine if it showed a giant picture of the symbol for those who can't see it--like Ankh does--but as it is, no, just... no. Too narrow. Well, I'll vote to keep if I get to start an accompanying article about ÿ :) --yes, that's the Windows symbol, which even my beloved Firefox can't display. Only a certain percentage can see it, heck, not even all IE users at that, so it too would make a weak and "discriminatory" page, just like this. --and what would this page ever be beyond a stub? I mean, it's not like @ where you can talk about its long and varied history and myriad uses... Garrett^Talk 08:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless trivia not warranting an article even if the damn symbol did show up. carmeld1 03:23, 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!) 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beatbotika

Non-notable, unverifiable dance non-craze. the wub "?/!" 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable by its own admission. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 14:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Two things:
  1. There aren't any artists who use the Beatbotika style--or at least any notable ones--so it's of no use to anyone;
  2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Doesn't matter how much the contributor thinks it'll be a craze, it shouldn't be here. --JB Adder | Talk 04:48, July 15, 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!) 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Börner

I just finished this nomination. No vote by me. --Dmcdevit 07:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Delete. Icelight 6 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Icelight. Dcarrano 14:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bar DJs are not notable, unless they happen to also be the President or something. Almafeta 21:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, it sounds like he's just some guy who works in bar. --Etacar11 00:51, 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 content, redirect/disambig (I'm regarding redirect and disambig as essentially the same thought here, since a disambig is really just multiple redirects on the same page). Scimitar ^parley 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arslan

I'm marking this VfD because I'm pretty sure it's a "vanity term", meaning it's a word invented based on someone the author knows personally. It is not a notable term and references a specific person. (preceding unsigned comment by Mipadi 08:09, July 3, 2005 (UTC))

• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE and REDIRECT to The Heroic Legend of Arslan. 67.68.64.81 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per 67.68.64.81, even though his conflicting vote is the standard example. -Harmil 11:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• No, "delete and redirect" is for once correct. The contents of this article should have been speed-deleted, and a redirect to a relevant article should then have been created. No license infringement involved, see? - Mustafaa 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• If I am not mistaken, Arslan is Turkish for "lion". There are a few people and a few places with Arslan as part of their name. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be appropriate? Redirecting to a modern fantasy novel seems like a case of systemic bias. Uppland 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, good point - I should have checked the link. In that case, delete and disambig. - Mustafaa 18:19, 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!) 08:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FinalFantasy123

Vanity, non-notable flash artist. Was subject of previous VfD with Delete consensus. Delete again. Thatdog 08:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable artist. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thatdog. Dcarrano 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy since it is recreated content. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a recreation. The previous nomination was never listed in the log, meaning it was never seen, or closed, or deleted, or recreated. --Dmcdevit·t 21:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I change my vote to delete then. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:32, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalipps

Non-notable rapper with a very high opinion of himself. the wub "?/!" 08:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, alleged future hip-hop star. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Thatdog 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely Delete Came across is under the needs to be wikified, but it really just needs to be deleted. jg325 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wackymacs 17:31, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Colored Fish

This may as well stand for all the pages I nominated yesterday, for the following reasons:

1. The cards that these are written about are hardly notable. Many are not even famous within the Yu-Gi-Oh! community.
2. The old "if every card had an article..." line holds true here.
3. These articles have all been created by the same IP address. If several people made them, I could possibly accept it, but this person (or small group) have created all of these short, uninformative articles.
4. The XYZ Series already has its own article, so the following pages may as well be merged with it:
   • X-Head Cannon
   • XY-Dragon Cannon
   • XYZ-Dragon Cannon
   • XZ-Tank Cannon
   • Y-Dragon Head
   • YZ-Tank Dragon
   • Z-Metal Tank
5. An article already exists for each set, so we could always merge some of the more useful content into those articles, eg 7 Colored Fish into Metal Raiders.
6. The creator appears to be somewhat biased towards WATER- and FIRE-type monsters. If these articles remain, there should at least be an even spread over the wide variety cards that could possess their own article.
7. And finally, is it likely that Yu-Gi-Oh! fans will come to an encyclopedia of all places to find information on individual cards? If they are, should we begin reviewing cards? This appears to be the direction in which we are heading, if we do not act.

I made those articles and I am willing to talk about the problem. Maybe we could work things out so it benefits both of us.

Talk then; I have laid out my point of view. And you should really create an account if you embark on such a courageous project. Setokaiba 07:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your idea about reviewing cards would be interesting.

<Falls over backwards in a very animé-style way.> Setokaiba 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we start reviewing cards?

• Strong delete for this, and all other individual weapons in Yu-Gi-Oh (or any other anime) that have their own articles. It's fancruft, I tell you. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:49 (UTC)

• Delete --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable fancruft. I dunno how Yu-Gi-Oh! cards work, but if this thing belongs in any sort of series of cards, can't you just merge it in? Individual cards do NOT need their own articles. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone wants to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Duel Monsters to go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex. That probably wouldn't work because there are over 1000 Duel Monsters cards and only 386 Pokemon.--pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, that's not a bad idea. DrachenFyre 01:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is neither a TCG card database nor a place for card reviews. Only cards that contribute majorly to the Yu-Gi-Oh! storyline deserve their own articles. Riddle | Talk 07:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete individual cards are not notable.  Grue  19:13, 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!) 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A-B Porn

Finished this nomination, no vote by me. --Dmcdevit 08:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. By its own admission, this article is about a neologism that has not become widespread -- wikipedia is not a neologism-spreader. -- Zantastik talk 03:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. BTW: "Made famous in the Christopher Walken classic "Brainstorm" (1983). It was to be the last film that Natalie Wood appeared in." Didn't she appear in one of the new Star Wars films as well? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to Natalie Portman perhaps? Natalie Wood tragically drowned in 1981. JamesBurns 10:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right. No clue as to how I mixed them up.... - 131.211.210.10 12:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup This is a notable neologism, and keep in mind that neologisms are "acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape". I'm not sure what the Google hit count on A-B Porn should be before it's considered a notable neologism, but for porn-related slang, it's up there.
• Delete. The podcast landscape is usually just a miniscule fraction of the public landscape. --Scimitar 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Google test for porn is really not reliable; look at the excerpts from the websites listed, most of them are nonsensical. Dcarrano 14:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism. Also, I'm very confused. Somehow, the term was "made famous" in a movie from 1983, but "was first mentioned during a podcast". Either the iPod has been around for much, much longer than I was aware, or this entry is pretty bs-y. jglc | t | c 14:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 20:05, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACC_Climate_Control

This article is merely a commercial advertisement. (preceding unsigned comment by JunkCookie 21:57, June 19, 2005 UTC)

• Delete, ad for non-notable company. Dcarrano 14:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment how big does a company need to be to have an article? Vegaswikian 04:54, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acushnet Company

It even reads like an advertisement. Delete. Sholtar 04:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad Dsmdgold 01:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sorry, but this company seems notable. History21
• Keep As a major employer of Southeastern Massachusetts with a long and notable history it should be kept. It just needs to be rewritten as to not sound like an advertisement. Mike (Unsigned 1st-3rd edit by IP 12.25.34.133. ~Mbsp)
• Delete Advertisement, not encyclopedic. Djadek 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable sportswear manufacturer. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup Can I please convince the deletionists to at least do some casual research before they point and shoot? per 12.25.34.133 who, anonymous or no, is right on the money (my mother worked for them for a while, and I heard about them constantly growing up) -Harmil 10:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've re-worked the aritcle and added some more detail. These folks have been making the #1 golf ball in pro golf for 57 years. How are they not notable, exactly? -Harmil 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've heard of them and I'm not even a golfer. --Calton | Talk 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'd rather see it become a start to the presently missing Fortune Brands article, until space issues force otherwise. Fortune Brands is an NYSE co.--this is just one subsidiary. Let's start big and work our way down. I've heard of Titleist even tho' I'm NOT a golfer, but I'm guessing Acushnet is only a small part of their history. Niteowlneils 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also looks like the first version was copyvio and should be dealt with accordingly. Niteowlneils 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This subsidiary is quite notable on its own, and keep in mind that Fortune Brands is just an umbrealla holding company. They own Tequila companies, shoe makers, office supply companies, lock makers, bathroom fixture makers, etc. Because of this weird diversity, I think it makes sense to have one article for the holding company and one for each major categorical business unit (such as Acushnet, which is the sporting goods division), and possibly even one each for the really well-known individual brands that we already have like Titleist, Jim Beam, Swingline, and DeKuyper. Yes, a company can be so huge and diverse that it can be worth several entries in Wikipedia. Take Ford for example, though I will grant that Ford is "F" on they NYSE where Fortune Brands has to slum with the two-letter "FO".... -Harmil 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, the holding company stub, Fortune Brands has been created. I think when you see that page, and think about the fact that they employ 32,000 people world-wide, the idea of an article for this division will not seem quite so odd. -Harmil 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like an ad for a company I've never heard of. --BradBeattie 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - golf puts me into a coma, but even I know about this golf ball company --Mothperson cocoon 00:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Titleist is a brand even a non-golfer has heard of (or seen the ads for). Uppland 12:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC) very well, keep per the below. Radiant_>|< 09:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP You've got to be kidding me. A hundred year old company, one of the most important companies in the game of Golf, and someone is seriously considering deleting it? Titleist golf ball production has only been going on since 1932. Yes, it was bought by a larger company, but only after establishing a very notable history of its own first. Unfocused 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not an ad. It is about an important company. Fg2 07:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company, not advertisment enough to make this delete-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 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 KEEP. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adidas 1

• Delete:too little content ~ Dpr 6 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
• 'delete - dito, tempted to do a speedy deletion. andy 6 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
• Weak keep, is now expanded, but still needs help with formatting and tone. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I made it into a more traditional stub. This is a pretty significant first, and I really don't see how it could be considered non-notable, even on the first day after its introduction. -Harmil 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, We have articles on Sharpie and other such things. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if they put a microchip and an electric motor in a Sharpie, I'd write the article! :) -Harmil 15:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as improved. Was certainly speediable before VfD tag added, though. -- Jonel | Speak 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Adidas. Radiant_>|< 13:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very notable product. Unfocused 15:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to adidas. -R. fiend 07:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notabe product. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ditto Ravedave 01:31, 16 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. NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Africa (Toto song)

I finished this nom that was never listed here. No vote from me. --Dmcdevit 09:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

delete/merge to Toto (band) - I think this small of an article is not necissary. in the main Toto article, there could be a mention of its appearance in GTA:VC, but this small of an article is not necessary. At least not for now. mysekurity 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Some content, but rather nano-, as the nominator suggests. Alai 05:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup You're all joking, right? GTA?! This song got so much air-play when I was growing up that I got sick of it. I think that this song might actually be responsible for my first knowledge that there were "plains" in Africa.
  • Rock on the Net's #90 in the list of top 100 80s songs
  • #11 in a poll of top 80s music

What is the criteria for a song if "Africa" can't make it? -Harmil 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. #1 song on Billboard charts in 1993 see [9] . Capitalistroadster 10:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not really much of an article, forgettable 80s song. JamesBurns 10:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Forgettable? The darn song still gets stuck in my head to this day Youngamerican 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleaup Gorrister 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir. I like the song, but two sentences? Keep it in Toto (band) until/unless it's ready to stand on its own. Niteowlneils 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) or as BD2412 said, the album.

That said, at some point we need to decide if WP's main goal is to be a timeless, universal encyclopedia, or just a db of today's pop[mostly Western]-culture (I wouldn't be surprised if we have more articles on fictional alien races from the StarWars extended universe than real human races/languages on Earth). If it's the former, I'd like to volunteer as the first paid full-time WP editor. If it's the latter, I may find something else to do with those 60-70 hours per week. Niteowlneils 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to be assuming that real things and fictional ones are fighting over limited resources, which is not true in an unlimited electronic encyclopedia. WP should aim to be an encyclopedia of all culture, and western/pop culture should be kept not just on its own merits but precisely because it preserves wikipedia's potential coverage of non-western/non-popular cultures. The kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to. Kappa 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And how many dollars have you donated to Wikipedia to build new DB servers? And how many non-Western pop-cultural articles have you contributed to or voted to keep? Theoretical/idealistic and real-world limits are very different. And a merge/redir to the band or album article would allow the "...kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to..." to do just that. Niteowlneils 20:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and hard to forget. Kappa 14:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable song but only if expanded. Otherwise merge with the band article until someone gets around to writing a full article. 23skidoo 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge with an article on the album from whence it came. Notable song. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable song, emblematic of the 80's. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Merge unless the album or band page is too busy for it, then keep would be acceptable. And damn you all for giving me an ear worm. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per capitalistroadster (Sorry, forgot to sign my vote Chuck 18:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC))
• A notable song, but nothing here. Redirect, unless expanded into a semi decent article, in which case keep. -R. fiend 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and, I hope, expand. An important 80s song and worthy of an expanded article. Moncrief 06:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect unless expanded. -Sean Curtin 06:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• The song is older than I am, but I love it. Keep and expand. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I left my brains down in Africa. Erm, I mean, keep, notable song. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable song of the 80's. --YUL89YYZ 20:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I know a depressing large number of people who enter into ecstatic trances when this song plays. Xoloz 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable song, per Capitalroadster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Great song, but is there really much more to be said about it? (cf. Billie Jean, another 1983 hit) Unless the article can be expanded to something more subtantial, it doesn't really seem to warrant its own entry. ----

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!) 09:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aitsu

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

• Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 10:36, 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!) 09:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The brushback.com

Delete, self-advertising/non-notable website Atratus 10:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• And the Alexa ranking is 182,470. Not notable, delete. --Dmcdevit 10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 10:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, unless someone can prove otherwise. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit -Harmil 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  DO NOT DELETE---this is a growing site that should be included

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with SSD (band). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Barile

• Merge. Al Barile is not notable for any other reason than being in SSD_(band). This information should be included in that article. Tombride 16:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has a varied career. Kappa 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to SSD_(band). Dcarrano 14:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Tombride -Harmil 15:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Tombride and Harmil. Drew 8:28, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander raftopoulos

I'm sure Grampa Raftopoulos was a great guy, and it's too bad he died so relatively young, but he wasn't notable. DS 02:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Requiescat in pacem Alexander Dsmdgold 23:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not important Dr Ingel 01:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Malathion 2 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia isn't a memorial and the article doesn't indicate he's done anything noteworthy. I'm tempted to speedy for a lack of useful content. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, genealogy. --Etacar11 00:55, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alright Jack

I sent this to vote because the article to me doesn't say anything extra "real" about this phrase. If it's a valid phrase, then a vote shall decide, no? Antares33712 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, found 628,000 Google hits for this article. DCUnitedRock23
• Delete. If anything, the phrase should be "I'm alright Jack" or "I'm all right Jack". However, this might be better off in Wiktionary, if that handles phrases. As it is, the article struggles to say anything of value, and the usage sentence is very contrived. The only thing that might rescue it is some etymology. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable lists it (using 'all right', along with a Naval equivalent ("Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm inboard") and an Australian equivalent - "Jack system"). If you feel it necessary to keep, then I'd suggest that those snippets are added. Noisy | Talk 17:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • In the UK, it is quite normal for "alright jack" to be used to describe things other than oneself. "I'm alright jack" may have been the original example, but the phrase has migrated to become a general term, and usage as in "They don't care, it's a safe seat, the MP is alright jack" (in an informal context) is common. Hyphz
  • Wiktionary accepts articles on idioms, such as bob's your uncle, containing etymologies, examples of their usages, and explanations of their meanings. Uncle G 12:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary It'd be more at home there, instead of in the encyclopedia. --JB Adder | Talk 11:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable stereotype of an attitude. Kappa 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very, very common British phrase of the post-war era. Perhaps should be moved to "I'm All Right Jack" with a disambig to the Peter Sellers/Ian Carmichael film of the same name. The film may be slightly better known outside the UK than the phrase and I have no real opinion on how the ambiguity should be resolved except that one of them should be primary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Radiant_>|< 13:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per TonySidaway. Xoloz 03:09, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amanecer de sol

I hereby nominate this page for deletion.

• (nomination by anon 152.163.100.202, but I second it - vanity. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC))
• Delete: POV, promotional --Tomunist 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable, vanity, pov. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• "A popular guild in Guild Wars". Delete. Meelar (talk) 14:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMC KOSHY

Appears to be vanity, I've pulled it of CAT:CSD and put it here, just to be sure. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unknown person. I did a google search and came up with nothing on any such person. Manik Raina 11:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/vanity. --Etacar11 00:59, 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!) 08:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Twister

Vanity page for 18 year old wrestler - not notable --Porturology 03:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it is a hoax, and even if it weren't, it is not notable. -- Marcika (properly listing the article on VfD.)

• Delete Nn. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 05:48, 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!) 08:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guildwars - Warrior

Game guide. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non encyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Non encyclopedic. The Guild Wars article already has a brief overview of this class, we do not need detailed guides for video games here. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:53, 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!) 08:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson burger

Hoax. Search for "Johnson burger" idaho = 11 Google hits, none relevant [10] --Uppland 11:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete'. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless a proper reference source can be found it must be treated as a hoax. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 12:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ("Johnson burger" "Thomas Johnson") returns zero relevant links. —Tokek 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxier than a hoaxy thing. KeithD 15:29, 19 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!) 08:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ASERTH

Promotion/Original research. Quote from the linked website "was released in July 2005". If it gains any usage then it may be worth an article, but not yet. andy 11:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable, also gives no information whatsoever, seems more of a personal rant than anything else. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nominator. —Tokek 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as much as I like this kind of things. Agree that it may be re-created if the layout spreads- LjL 00:43, 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!) 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spazz Inc.

Advertising/nn. NSR (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball, non-notable, vanity, advertising. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with crystal ball and anti-advertising points. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Ram-Man stated. Joyous (talk) 14:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: As per Ram-Man. --Durin 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 05:51, 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!) 08:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Timeline Carter

Non-notable blogger, ZERO goggle hits for "Dave Timeline Carter} Gorrister 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn, alexa 1,819,729 for referenced site -Harmil 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:52, 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC) div>

It's very hard to find out how a person is to defend themselves in Wikipedia. This may be the wrong place, and if it is I'm sorry. My name is John D Curnow and I'm not a hoax, as one person suggested. I was one of the first people to record bird songs in the midwest. My tapes were sold by the Audubon Camp here in Wisconsin. The NASCO Corp of Fort Atkins, WI sold my tapes to high schools all over the US and Canada for ten years. A copy of my book "Plant Communities - Ecological Studies Of The Upper Midwest" was copyrighted and sent to the Library Of Congress. I was also awarded the outstanding alumni award from the University Of Wisconsin-Platteville and I did teach from 1951 - 1999. I may not be important enough to be found in Google and I can accept that, but I'm certainly not a hoax! John D Curnow

• As the closing admin, I can say that the discussion was fairly straight forward on this article. The deletion policy does have a provision for cases were verification is provided after a debate has occured. If you are able to cite appropriate references to back up the article then please request an undeletion of the article at WP:VFU, including your references as part of the request. --Allen3 ^talk 16:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)