Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 13

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. Postdlf 05:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NigSek

Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 00:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, gets only 47 unique Google hits. -Splash 01:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with RPG Maker. Only a few hits because it's a new game. 728 Google results now. RPG Maker is a software to develop games by amateurs. Any game from this software will not get many Google results. The fact that it gets 728 hits is very impressive for an amateur game. --Vizcarra 22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• No, the Google hit count hasn't changed. I said unique Google hits. Just including all of them is rather misleading because the remaining 680-odd almost entirely come from a single source: www.gaminw.net which just has loads of internal hits for this one piece of software. It's important to scroll through the first few pages of Google hits in cases like this, as Google helpfull indicates the correct number of true hits by truncating the list. -Splash 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right but I'm not changing my vote. RPG seems such a niche hobby. --Vizcarra 01:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, there are plenty of game making tools on the web and this one isn't very notable. Radiant_>|< 12:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability CDC (talk) 23:10, 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Shaw

Non-notable vanity page. It appears to be true that he did write one published book review, but considering also that a google search of "brent shaw" + University of Lethbridge (to get rid of false positives for this presumably common name) gives 23 hits, it does not establish notability. Delete. --Dmcdevit 00:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Eeks! I'm certainly not happy about this nomination. I should have researched it more fully, (Amazon next time as well as Google). Thanks for the catch, and I'm blushing brightly in front of my computer screen. (In my own defense, I was finishing up someone else's nomination, and so gave it less thought than I normally would have). Speedy keep and bonk the nominator on the head (speedily). --Dmcdevit·t 08:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn per nominator. If he had written one published book that would be different. -Splash 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Forbsey 01:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A professor who has produced eight pages of published work in 11 years probably should worry more about keeping his job than about his placement in WP. Okay, he published a little more than that but I still vote Delete. Publishing in one's field is a requirement for a professor, not an accomplishment. To be encyclopedic, one should have to be regarded as a special authority in that field; otherwise, one is just an academic. Dcarrano 01:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has made a significant contribution to the study of "Environment and Society in Roman North Africa" [1]. Of course you get a low number of google hits when using an extremely restricted search, it's not a valid test. Kappa 01:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to have written one book, edited at least one other, according to Amazon. [2] Expand and cleanup, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:56, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
• Keep based on amazon.com findings and expand article. Postdlf 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is noteable; expand. Phoenix2 04:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep due to amazon. Benna 05:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per comments by Dcarrano. Writing one book just isn't that notable for an academic. —Cleared as filed. 05:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• More than one, if this item from the Princeton Weekly is any indication:

Shaw will come to Princeton from the University of Pennsylvania, where he has been a professor since 1996. From 1995 to 1996 and from 1989 to 1990, he was a visiting professor of Greek and Roman history at Princeton. For 15 years, starting in 1977, he taught at the University of Lethbridge in Canada.

Specializing in Roman history, religion and material culture, Shaw's books include Spartacus and the Slave Wars: A Brief History with Documents, published by St. Martin's Press in 2001; and Variorum editions of Environment and Society in Roman North Africa and Rulers, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, published in 1995. He earned his B.A. from the University of Alberta and his Ph.D. from Cambridge University.

• I say keep. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable historian with a number of published books on Roman history. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable academic with several published works. And don't just use Amazon, use library catalogues. All the catalogues of all the best and largest libraries in the world (Library of Congress, British Library, Bibliothèque national de France, all national and major university libraries in Europe and North America etc.) are freely available over the net. This is not just directed at the nominator in this case, but to everybody who makes nominations of this kind or votes on them. This should really be in the instructions somewhere. Uppland 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It does appear that this is a notable authority in his field. Daedalus-Prime 13:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a notable authority. MicahMN | Talk 18:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Arevich 20:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this figure is a notable historian within his field. Hall Monitor 22:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the New Republic allowed him to write on their magazine why not include him in wikipedia as well? --Vizcarra 22:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I echo the above users' reasons as to why. Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:51 Beijing Time

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. Postdlf 05:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solaris RPG Online (http://solarisrpg.com)

Non-notable website with only 37 displayed hits for "Solaris RPG Online". Niteowlneils 00:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing revolutionaty about this text based rpg. --nixie 00:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and largely an ad with lots of peacock language. -Splash 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the title alone serves as an advertisement! Xoloz 07:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Solaris RPG (and list in List of role-playing games). Actually, Google results for "Solaris RPG" are 1,060. {unsigned vote from User:Vizcarra. Niteowlneils 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)}

And even that truncated search term only gets 62 displayed hits[3]. Niteowlneils 01:34, 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.

[edit] ArabJet

A 'planned' airline that gets less than 10 displayed hits, with about half being other uses or Wikipedia mirrors. Project was announced last August[4], and http://www.arabjet.com still says nothing but 'coming soon' with an email link to get any info. Barely verifiable, and WP is not a crystal ball. Niteowlneils 00:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vapour-airline since my crystal ball just won't work tonight so I can't verify this. -Splash 01:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Create again when the Airline is notbale enough for a WP article. Forbsey 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.
• Delete, for the forseeable future. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and nonnotable conjecture, at least until more substantial steps have been made towards actually starting it. Postdlf 03:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 08:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For now. But the article can be re-created when new details emerge. --LeoTheLion 19:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Once it starts servicing (if it ever does, page is looking for investors), article can be created. --Vizcarra 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the company is apparently up and running, just not flying. The editor that did the last updates has been doing an excellent job in getting all airlines listed and if he thinks it can be improved, then I'd be willing to leave it to grow. Are we going to need a guideline for when an airline gets listed? Vegaswikian 05:15, 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 SPEEDY DELETED as vandal hoax, confirmed by comment from article author on this VfD talk page. Postdlf 10:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Janelle bakke

This page is either prophetic - or lies. You decide. I vote delete --Doc (?) 00:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• You may also wish to read the comment on the talk page. -Splash 03:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like a hoax. 2010? Food for eventualists. JFW | T@lk 00:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Google for "Janelle bakke" Cement results in no hits (Cement being part of her "book title"). DELETE. ral315 01:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity, hoax. Amazon hasn't heard of her or her books. Shocked was I. -Splash 01:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/crystal ball. Dcarrano 01:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Briangotts 02:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. "Janelle bakke" + "age of deception" = 0 google hits,[5], which one would think rather odd for a seven-week NY Times bestseller by a 19 year old. Postdlf 03:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Hold on now... A future history of teen angst written in all lower case? What is not to love?! - Marvin01 | talk 05:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: can only be assumed that this is a hoax, delusion or fantasy. --InformationalAnarchist 05:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the talk page - and that it speaks in the past tense of events that havn't (and probably won't) occur. Can we speedy as patent nonsense?? --Doc (?) 08:53, 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. Postdlf 05:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] C Programming Mistakes

(Please also review Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Summit for a related entry)

• Delete or move to Wikibooks. —BenFrantzDale 20:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up. There's a lot more useful content here than in some rather-popular Wiki articles. Atlant 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikibooks -- not encyclopedic, and much of the content is of dubious correctness anyway. Neilc 01:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Many are also vague like "Consider providing Error Stratergies" or "Do Not Create Buffer Overflow problems", which is about the same as saying "do not write code with bugs". —BenFrantzDale June 28, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

• Delete or move to Wikibooks. Whether or not the content is objectionable, it's certainly not in the format of an encyclopedia article. The C article already extensively discusses problems with C, which covers much of this, and anything it doesn't could be merged into that section. Besides, much of the advice is not specific to C. Be gentle on the contributor though — they're obviously new and probably didn't realise this material was inappropriate. I'd suggest merge and redirect, but the title is nothing someone could conceivably type in a search box. Deco 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Also note that the bottom portion of this article (the part that looks good) is copied directly from C programming language without credit. This is not only dishonest but kind of silly, since the writer evidently didn't actually use any of these sources. Deco 21:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Bad article, already covered by problems with C Friday 2 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a general tutorial service. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT a FAQ or a how-to. -Splash 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More appropriate for Wikibooks. Forbsey 01:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up. --Briangotts 02:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Jeremy Harmon 06:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic: cannot be made NPOV. Not good enough to transwiki to Wikibooks. What garbage. "Do: Write Robust, Simpler, Efficient, Reusable and Modular Codes." Yeah, right. Which are the languages in which one would be advised to write fragile, complex, inefficient, unadaptable, and monolithic codes? What if efficiency cannot be obtained except at the cost of greater complexity? Arrggh, don't get me started. Hey, how come it doesn't say DO: use three spaces per tab? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up, potentially valuable article and a decent start jamesgibbon 15:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How-tos are not encyclopedic. I will trust more knowledgeable types that the advice is not that essential and thus not worth transwikying. Dcarrano 15:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge into C programming language. --Vizcarra 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Worthwhile information, but not mistakes, just a(n incomplete) list of style guidelines. Peter Grey 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject will never yield a good article. Every programmer has their own personal list of "do" and "don't" rules. This article is just a POV magnet for every programmer with the egotism to think their way is the only way. If programming rules worked, computers wouldn't need programmers. --A D Monroe III 20:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Valuable stuff, if the focus is shifted from "C programming mistakes" to "Common C programming mistakes". On which topic I am, er, very knowledgeable. Or perhaps even "Notable C programming mistakes" (I can think of a few examples of code mistakes that led to serious consequences).Robinh 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read the article it actually has very little to do with C programming mistakes, per se, unlike say C programming language#Problems. I would interpret this vote as "rewrite". Deco 01:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There's potential here, I'm just not sure where. Merge with C, maybe, as an "informal coding style standard" sort of dealie? There's some good advice in the article (and some I'd disagree with, but not count as bad, neccessarily). No vote. --Jack (Cuervo) 03:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (for reasons which have been well-stated above), and don't bother moving to Wikibooks, either. (In fact the currently-empty Wikibooks stub entry probably eeds deleting too.) Steve Summit 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert/vanity: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Summit - Tεxτurε 19:45, 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. jni 11:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christine eckerfield

• Delete Basic Vanity Page PhilipO 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC) PhilipO
  • Comment: took the liberty of correcting improper wikiformatting. Marblespire 01:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Briangotts 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity, NN A curate's egg 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity royblumy 22:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hard to tell with artists, but looks like nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable, local artist. --Vizcarra 23:19, 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 → Slut (Definition already on Witionary) --Allen3 ^talk 16:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hussy

• Delete Word definition PhilipO 01:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC) philipO
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki of not already in wiktionary. Otherwise delete as dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef already in Wiktionary. Dcarrano 16:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki Skeeter08865
• Re-direct to Slut. --Vizcarra 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Slut, which is a reasonable short article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep but please redirect it to slut that seems right Yuckfoo 17:24, 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 DELETE. jni 11:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splank's Law

Looks like a hoax to me. CDC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax based on Simpsons character names. Google gets zero. -Harmil 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxes. It looked like patent nonsense to me, but I can't say for sure, being in the Humanities. CanadianCaesar 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. the wub "?/!" 12:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Hoax A curate's egg 15:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, nothing makes' sense in the article. --Vizcarra 23:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. I would have thought this rated a Speedy Delete. ~ WCFrancis 23:37, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Entire content was "Long Lake, Ontario." Postdlf 03:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long Lake (Ontario)

Empty article PhilipO 01:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC) PhilipO

• Such an article is a Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, so I've deleted it. JYolkowski // talk 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We cannot delete something that isn't there. Delist. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:55, 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 merge and redirect to Franz Kafka. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dora Dymant

Barely notable with Kafka and almost invisible without. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Franz Kafka. Pburka 03:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, and merge only that she lived with him. The rest of this sounds horridly suspicious. They dreamed in 1924 (a single year) of moving to Tel-Aviv? Was there a Tel-Aviv? He wanted to be a waiter? He then got into the Talmud? Excuse me, but I want bullet proof references for every one of those statements, and even that she lived with him. Geogre 15:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect warily. Yes, Tel Aviv has existed since 1909. Besides that, it all seems flimsy. royblumy 22:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Pburka. Dcarrano 16:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree that the article I wrote doesn't meet the requirements, and I'm surely after the deletion. Most of the information is gotten from Kafka for beginners by David Zane Mairowitz & Robert Crumb. — Amakuha 23:52, 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. jni 11:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martinsburg and Winchester metal and punk

Bandcruft -Tydaj 02:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and vanity. This article on a nonnotable music "scene" was created just to further promote Stuck In Kaos (see VfD below), and clearly consists of subjective observations rather than an account of documented sources. Postdlf 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 08:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. the wub "?/!" 12:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity royblumy 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn scene vanity. --Etacar11 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are some decent bands there right now, but it isn't exactly Seattle, circa 1990 or anything Youngamerican 14:57, 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 jni 11:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuck In Kaos

Bandcruft -Tydaj 02:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Band vanity. No AMG entry, no listing on amazon.com. Some web presence, but according to their website, their only album was "recorded ourselves in the basement of our then band room to set our songs in concrete and to get something out there to start promoting ourselves." Their upcoming second album, which also appears to be self-recorded due to the glaring lack of a label mention, will only be sold at their live shows and through their website. Stuck in nonnotability... Postdlf 03:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Benna 05:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. the wub "?/!" 12:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:57, 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. jni 11:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damnatus

Advertising, nn Atratus 02:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is one of those that fails by its own terms—"amateur movie project"=nonnotable vanity/advertising. Postdlf 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This may be a fan movie, but within the 40K community this is a milestone movie. A large following has grown around what is a feature length amateur movie. Wikipedia has kept worse than this. I do agree it needs expanding and fleshed out a bit more though. Ben W Bell 08:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable fanflick. JamesBurns 08:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertising, non-notable. Naturenet | Talk 11:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if it gains notability after it's release, we can talk. NN. Not a crystal ball. Wikibofh 14:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: 1) doesn't exist yet, so nothing may be said; 2) not a major release or one with distribution; 3) advertising for downloads of the sountrack -- sorry -- epic soundtrack. If it gets finished, gets exhibited, gets press, becomes a leader or exerts influence, then we can have an NPOV article on it. Geogre 15:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Dcarrano 16:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 22:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete (with open mind) fanfiction work-in-progress. The most notable thing about the situation is [the Games Workshop] flexible attitude toward intellectual property that allows this sort of thing. Someday the film, if completed, might rate a footnote on the Games Workshop article or it might rate an article of its own depending on fan response, as noted above. The article certainly could find a home at another wiki. I personally am going to bookmark the site and watch their progress with interest. A lot of talent, energy and hard work is going into this labor of love. ~ WCFrancis 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the one who originally started the article - I heard about this movie and thought that it would be a significant thing for people who are interested in Warhammer 40K in that there has never been a movie set in the Warhammer 40K universe. Given the amount of information about the games etc in relation to Games Workshoop I think that it would be remiss if wikipedia didn't contain something about this. BTW I am not accociated with the movie in any way - I only put in the info about the soundtrack because I thought that it would be of interest. Gil-Galad
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:48, 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 keep. Barely. Woohookitty 06:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Barney & Friends episodes

Um, since I hate Barney more than Hitler? No? Ok, how about "not ecyclopedic"? brenneman^(t)(c) 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We have so many episode list articles that there is a well-populated category. Mass media pop culture is encyclopedic under our guidelines and precedents, as long as it's approached in an encyclopedic manner rather than a fanboy perspective. Postdlf 02:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that list out to me. No disageement about the validity of pop culture for inclusion, just of the merits of a list of this nature. Is there any reason these aren't merged into their parent articles? (Changing this into an unfortunate pseduo vote for merge.) brenneman^(t)(c) 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Length of the article is usually the concern for splitting these off, because these will typically have episode summaries added that would just make the main article far too long. In this case, given the current size of Barney and Friends, I'm fine with merging until the content grows enough to necessitate splitting back off. Postdlf 03:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Besides length, I have also noted that FAC nominations tend to hit a brick wall if the articles are too list-heavy. If anyone wants to put the main article up for Featured Article status, they pretty much need to spin lists off into their own articles. 23skidoo 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Barney and Friends. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into higher level article. I think it is reasonable to have this content in Wikipedia and since Barney and Friends is not too long (yet) there's no reason the episode list cannot live there. I prefer to avoid splitting up information and I see no good argument for having this list live on a separate page from its parent content. Tobycat 04:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Barney and Friends, as episode lists belong on the show's main page. And I swear, one day I'll remember to sign more than 50% of my votes without having to edit twice. The Literate Engineer 04:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Barney and Friends, as per Literate Engineer. JamesBurns 08:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NOTE: I've expanded this list heavily and it now has 188 episodes (up from the previous 35) across 9 seasons. It's probably now too long to merge into Barney & Friends. TheCoffee 12:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to precedent and I think the list would make the main article too top-heavy. I'd rather see an episode list than an attempt at doing individual episode articles, though. 23skidoo 12:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hate this Barney crap, but it should stay. Youngamerican 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merging would make the main article bloated with episode names. Sam Vimes 15:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Barney and Friends. Dcarrano 16:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's too big for merging and could probably be expanded to include a synopsis for each episode, etc. Besides, you're only picking on this show 'cause its demographic is too young to defend it. I Boo you, sir! (Obviously within the terms of WP:NPA). Flowerparty 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too long now for a merge and no one can say Barney isn't a notable figure =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasons for deletion are very unimpressive. Moncrief 21:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above royblumy 22:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Postdlf. I would suggest merging, but as per Sam Vimes & Flowerparty, it shouldn't be merged. --Markaci 2005-07-14 T 02:46:30 Z
• Keep I have kids and I was looking for this information. It is useful and is popular culture. --Alvaro Ledesma 17:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep just because you hate something you dont erase it guy Yuckfoo 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Barney rocks and for those who need episode titles, they can get them. I Boo anyone who wants to delete this page. SonicHOG, Owner of Barney HQ message board 16:46, 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. jni 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filler fan

Delete neologism/message board vanity. Postdlf 02:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable fan forum promo. JamesBurns 08:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN and tedious to read A curate's egg 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 16:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 22:03, 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 redirect to Arbitrary precision. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite precision arithmetic

Quite difficult to form an opinion based upon what currently exist. However this turns up very little, and Wolfram has nothing.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if the subject itself has any merit, this article certainly has none. —Cleared as filed. 05:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is a minor, but notable corner of computer science. The external link which I found - [6] - is what this article should be. -- RHaworth 09:38, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
• Delete content, list on requested articles. Radiant_>|< 13:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Subject is notable, but as has been said, the content is essentially meaningless. Delete unless significantly cleaned up. Redirect to Arbitrary precision, which I have a bit of experience in this area, so I might clean it up myself. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Arbitrary precision, the more common name for this concept. Both are rather dismal, though. -- Plutor 14:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arbitrary precision. There is nothing to merge. -- RHaworth 15:57, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
• Redirect as per RHaworth. Redundant topic. Darksidex 17:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, although that other article sucks too.  Grue  21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'll take a look at that one tonight if I have the time. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Article as it stands now is nonsensical yammering. ~ WCFrancis 00:11, 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. jni 11:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity niches

Mostly finishing incomplete nomination, but inclined towards delete--seems awfully subjective, thus POV. I mean yeah, Terri Garr and Lisa Kudrow are often compared, but Dustin Hoffman and Zack Braff? And is "Charlie Chaplin --> Johnny Depp" accurate, or should it be "Charlie Chaplin --> Robert Downey Jr."? Niteowlneils 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - It does seem very subjective. I wouldn't even agree on the Chaplin -> Downey idea. Chaplin acted, wrote, directed, and scored films. The closest comparison I can think of there might be Woody Allen or Ruben Blades. I think might be better without the examples, but it's hard to understand the description without some examples. Maybe it could use one or two solid examples to give the idea. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I think an argument could also be made for "Charlie Chaplin --> Paul Reubens"--also a writer, producer, composer, and director, in addition to acting, plus is better known for physical comedy, rather than Allen's more cerebral. Just more evidence of the slippery slope of the article's premise. Niteowlneils 04:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, neologism, or unencyclopedic, absent some showing that this is actually a valid and documented topic in pop culture studies. Postdlf 03:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. - Lucky 6.9 05:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, original research, subject so poorly defined and subjective as to be meaningless. Dcarrano 16:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 22:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Amusing theory but not encyclopedic. ~ WCFrancis 00:13, 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 No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk 16:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David_Madden

While he's the current champion on Jeopardy! and dominating his games so far, his streak really isn't long enough to be noteworthy quite yet. People have done better than he has and lost sooner. OntarioQuizzer 03:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've already commented on this in the main article but I feel this also bears repeating here. Whether or not the encylopedic nature of an article is in dispute does not mean it's an excuse to goof around and pretend this is an Uncyclopedia article. We do have to maintain a certain professional standard in our article writing, and certainly avoid inserting biased opinions meant primarily to mock instead of inform. Like I alluded to, there's Uncyclopedia if you want to goof around that badly. Also, I think someone should add a clean-up tag (maybe that would be more appropriate than a VfD tag?) User:24.9.10.235
• Keep. He's already broken Tom Walsh's record (two, actually). If we delete his article we might as well delete Tom's and merge with the main Jeopardy! or Ken Jennings article then, going by the logic by some here. User:24.9.10.235
  • Well you can't break a record that's already been broken; it doesn't work that way, or else I would have broken the 1880 land speed record on my way to breakfast this morning. -R. fiend 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • According to your logic, Wade Boggs' (whose about to be inducted into Cooperstown in a few days) entry should be denied because he never has done anything truly exceptional, or John Elway or Dan Marino should be removed from the Hall of Fame because they've never done anything truly Earth-shattering such as Terry Bradshaw's Super Bowl winning record (hell, Marino has never won a single Super Bowl!). For that matter, according to the same logic Tom Walsh's page needs to be verified for deletion too, since Madden (let alone Jennings) have proven it's hardly an insurmountable figure (let's face it, it's only seven games). The reason why it is an important milestone is because this is only the second time that record has been surpassed (although I personally believe it will hardly be the last) but for now it's at least as notable as Tom Walsh's old record.
      • Nope, I'm just saying he didn't break a record, which is true. And, indeed, I'm no great proponent of Walsh's page either, but (like it or not) he did hold a few records, which Daveyboy has not done. And if old whatshername had realized that the Ode to Joy was not 70 minutes long (no matter how slow its played) Dave would be yesterday's news already. I'm not saying he won't be the next big thing in game show contestants; I'm just saying as of now he isn't. -R. fiend 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • He may not have broken any records yet but for the time being he's a notable player and it looks like he'll surpass the 15-game mark many people have mentioned as being the threshold allowing him an article. Once again, according to your logic many notable people should be ignored, a logic I frankly find to be ignorant at best. Think of it this way; if he does manage to win $1,000,000 in non-tournament winnings he'll still probably become a 'cause celeb' and yet still be about a third from Jennings' total winnings. Because the new records are so insurmountable, I think we shouldn't be so hung up on them.
          • Nowhere did I say he needed to hold a record to be notable enough for an article, I merely said a record would likely justify one. My main point is that the Walsh comparisons were flawed because Walsh was both a first and a holder of three records (and even his notability is somewhat questionable in my book); Madden doesn't fit either of those criteria. Maybe he will soon warrant an article, but I don't think he has yet, and he certainly didn't when this article was written. -R. fiend 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
            • To tell you the truth I've been kinda waivering between "keep" and "delete" myself, but I think we can give Madden the benefit of the doubt and keep it for now. I don't think it will be too much longer for him to gain noteriety (he's only $200,000 away from half a million; that may seem like quite a bit but it took him only, what, two weeks to get $200,000?), and if he falls short we can always delete later. Or whatever the Wikiministrators decide.
• Keep. Why don't we just give this situation the benefit of the doubt? After all, it would be much easier to decide to delete the article if he loses on tomorrow's episode, for example. Why jump on it now if the possibility exists that he may become noteworthy later on? In fact, David only has to win once more to tie the previously-held record of wins prior to Ken Jennings which was Tom Walsh who was the first contestant to win more than 5 games when the 5-game rule was eliminated. asert 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the season ends next week, and won't start up again until September. ral315 13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Now, the number of wins stands at seven. That ties the record of Tom Walsh, so it is noteworthy. asert 01:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing here really. If he actaully approaches anything like Ken then we can create an article on him. This doesn't say anything anyway. Alex uses the K-word once in a haphazard remark and everyone thinks this guy's on the way to win 70 more games. I think a good test will be to see when and if he's mentioned outside of the show (and internet forums on the show). After Ken won about 12 games or so I think it was, Letterman started talking about him, as did others. Doesn't seem to be happening with Dave yet. All this "chronicling the next Ken" was all over wikipedia the moment he lost, and nothing panned out there. Patience. -R. fiend 06:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isn't one episode away from equalling Ken's winning streak actually approaching him? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that is 68 games away. -R. fiend 15:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable contestant. JamesBurns 08:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no match for Ian Lygo on that king of quiz shows 100% -- the wub "?/!" 12:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lygo: £7,500 --- Madden: $217,100 Jordan Elder 00:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would support him receiving an article after about 15 or 20 wins. However, he's only won 6 games (to put in perspective, nearly a hundred contestants won 5 games and then were forced to retire before the rule change). Besides, his 15th win wouldn't air until September. ral315 13:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and yawn... A curate's egg 15:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A contestant. Ken is in because he was a cause celeb. There is no indication whatever of this fellow being referred to in the general media, that he is a cultural signifier. He's just a person doing well on a show. There have been legions of such. I wouldn't want an article on him no matter how many wins unless he were a subject requiring explanation to an educated reader of the future. We are not the high game counter of TV shows. Geogre 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per R. fiend and Geogre. Dcarrano 16:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Qualified delete, perhaps include the info in a brief elab on a List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. knoodelhed 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP because seven days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy, and it is noteworthy. If he lasts longer than Tom Walsh (and that would be one more game), then definitely keep it. Jordan Elder 17:29, July 13 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if Tom Walsh gets an article, so does this guy. Radagast 02:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've added somewhat to the article's breadth with some biographical details. Radagast 01:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jordan Elder & Radagast. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 02:51:09 Z
• Delete there is notthing noable about this contestant beyond his time on the show. --nixie 04:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tom Walsh probably shouldn't have an article either. I guess he does only because he was the first player ever to appear on a 6th show, which had basically nothing to do with him, but everything to do with a change in the rules and good timing. (Well, not nothing; he had to win a bunch of games, which isn't trivial, but not exactly encyclopedic). He also held several Jeopardy records. Madden is only 70 games and about 3 million dollars away from holding one himself. -R. fiend 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to the game show. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! Have you guys ever even seen David on Jeopardy? Won't it ever pass your [thick] skulls that eight consecutive days is a rare occurrence on Jeopardy? In fact, this is the third time it's happened, with Tom Walsh and Ken Jennings before him. He might even be the next Ken Jennings, but he already is the next Tom Walsh! He is notable! Besides, I checked the deletion policy and this article can stay, according to it. Why delete it? Jordan Elder 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • Note: This comment is user's 11th edit (actually his 11th through 23rd edits are all this comment). -R. fiend 16:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Rare" is not "encyclopedic". I could do all sorts of rare things. 8 appearances on Jeopardy will not be so rare much longer as people are no longer cut off at 5 games. In fact, the 5 games limit had only been removed a short while before someone exceeded it by 15 times. As I said, Tom Walsh held 3 records, Dave is nowhere near even one. When he gets his record, he'll get his page. In fact, I'd like to make a Game show records page as place to cover these contestant stubs (like Walsh) as well as some of the info on Ken's page about records he's held. The only problem is that other than Jeopardy and Millionaire and a few others I'm not entirely sure where to find such information. And to cover all, or most, game shows it would be quite a substantial endeavor. If anyone else likes this idea let me know and maybe we can work on it. The best I can see Madden getting is a runner up for most Jeopardy (regular season) appearances if he gets that far. -R. fiend 21:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Last summer, when Ken Jennings was at the peak of his popularity (middle of last July), he had over 23,000 hits on Google (for ' "Ken Jennings" Jeopardy ') and 914 Google News hits. ' "David Madden" Jeopardy' has 118 hits on Google, and 0 Google News hits. Ken Jennings has an article because he transcended his genre. Now people are going "9 games? Who cares!" Tom Walsh has an article because at least a modicum of normal people cared about his 7 wins. Dave Madden is still not notable in the context of his newsworthyness, meaning he really does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. --OntarioQuizzer 09:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And it's like any person can get 9 games, right? Jordan Elder 19:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP: 9 games is an impressive streak on Jeopardy, and whether or not he has Google news results (he has one now) has little to do with noteworthiness. If you took Google results into account, you'd be trying to delete Ian Lygo's page. He has 122 web results and 0 news items. Can't you at least give some respect for David? He's probably making more money than any of you.

Note: This is the 3rd Keep vote from this user (Jordan Elder) in this discussion.. --OntarioQuizzer 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He is definitely now in my view worthy of the article (the 'keeping him in light of Tom Walsh's article' argument seems more than valid also). --DanielNuyu 07:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Madden is currently notable only to Jeopardy viewers, but I think this vfd is premature. Why don't we wait and see how long he makes it? If he's eliminated soon and thereby becomes nonnotable, we can always delete the article. If he wins a lot and becomes noteworthy, we won't have to come back and recreate a deleted article. As it is, his chances could go either way. I would suggest waiting until we can be sure. Binadot 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The show's 21st season ends on Friday and goes on hiatus until September -- should we be waiting around for 6 weeks for a streak to go over the edge of notability? --OntarioQuizzer 11:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be a keeper. Dan100 (Talk) 12:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Barely notable in the realm of Jeopardy! translates into not notable for encyclopedic consumption. The arguement that he has performed a "rare" feat is also misleading because Jeopardy! has only recently implmented the format that allows a champion to remain more than five days and much of that period was dominated by a single individual. There is not enough data to determine how rare this feet truly is. Indrian 15:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly we need to be somewhat cautious about namespace pollution, but we're not EB, neither. --Baylink 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Mwl 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- just in case my nomination doesn't count. --OntarioQuizzer 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If consensus is judged to be Keep, a disambig should be created for David (considering there are two other David Maddens referenced in other areas of the project. --OntarioQuizzer 12:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What's the big deal? Isn't this wikipedia thingy supposed to have _everything_ in it? David's a geek who is doing right by himself, and deserves any minor fame he achieves. Besides, he keeps winning and will probably finish the season, and you'll have no choice anyway. Ted from Ontario. 20 July 2005.

Comment: What Wikipedia Is Not -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. David's notoriety is the subject of the discussion. --OntarioQuizzer 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Derktar 05:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC).

Comment: Is this user related to Jordan? I really hope he hasn't started meatpuppeting. --OntarioQuizzer 10:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No I am not related to Jordan, we are both inclusionists though and as inclusionists we are working to keep articles, see:m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members and m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians -- Derktar 19:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for the clarification -- I noted both of your last names being Elder and figured I should ask. --OntarioQuizzer 02:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting? Jordan Elder 02:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and re-evaluate in a month -- Right now he seems to be somewhat notable enough for mention, this may not turn out to be lasting, it seems hard to say. --Mysidia 02:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I can't say I'm opposed to the idea, but I just want to point out that Jeopardy! goes on its annual 6 week summer hiatus after tomorrow's episode. Meaning that he'll be at about this level until early September. --OntarioQuizzer 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I think this debate should have ended by now. He has won 14 in a row which is double that of Tom Walsh. If he is not worthy, then Walsh certainly is not as well. I would say the standard should probably be 10 in a row. As a long time Jeopardy fan my guess is that only 1-2 people per season of Jeopardy will accomplish that feat.

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Liberatore

• Delete Poorly written Vanity Page -- PhilipO
• Delete, even though he's a total cream fest. Joyous (talk) 03:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• (Invalid vote) KEEEP!1 SAM LIBERAOTRE IS AWESOME I KNOW HIM -dana carroll, rockledge FL

65.33.6.143's contributions. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN Vanity A curate's egg 15:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as vandalism. This was site hijacking to be Sam's high school yearbook. Geogre 15:58, 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 merge with Playpen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Play Pen

Dictionary definition. See also: Onesie, High chair, Changing table, Playsuit, Baby Powder, Baby Oil, Blanket sleeper, Plastic pants, Shortalls, Rhumba panties. Please note, no value judgement is intended or implied. brenneman^(t)(c) 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the lot of them to Baby paraphernelia. Radiant_>|< 13:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, they are good faith contributions. Right now, they're dicdefs, but they've got 5 days to expand. Merge per Radiant, for now. --Scimitar 15:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to playpen. Note that Baby Oil is a redirect to mineral oil and Baby Powder duplicates baby powder, moreover. Uncle G 16:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 16:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above royblumy 21:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• merge Play Pen with Playpen and the others aren't on Vfd, and obviously haven't been looked at properly. Kappa 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are these entries so offensive to you all? Please explain. Dave 02:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• • They're not offensive. We're just finding out what might be the most comprehensive way of presenting the information. Note that 'merge' means that the text is kept, but placed somewhere else. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki whatever there is no redirect for then delete--nixie 04:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Playpen. JamesBurns 08:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:03, 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. jni 11:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin Tyria

non-notable, probably self-promotion, exact phrase "Dustin Tyria" produces 1 Google result Delete. Joel7687 03:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Dcarrano 16:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn. Friday 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 21:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is the best first draft of a vanity article I've ever read. Delete anyway. ~ WCFrancis 00:17, 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. jni 11:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobbin club

A 6th grade club, that has made millions of dollars selling bobbins. Joyous (talk) 03:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Haha. Not notable or encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 05:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- the wub "?/!" 12:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mrs. Jenkins wants this article to go awaye. Friday 20:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 21:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. And sounds like something from a children's book. --Etacar11 23:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ok.--Bhadani 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as re-created content. Joyous (talk) 17:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krocsyldiphithic

Does WP:FICT cover things/themes talked about by main characters? brenneman^(t)(c) 03:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as re-creation of already deleted article. A different spelling of this "word" was up for VfD a few months back and lost. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Angr. JamesBurns 08:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unexpandable dic def of nonsense word. Speedily if old vfd can be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy dlete--Scimitar 15:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The old VFD (nominated 17 April 2005, deleted 1 May 2005) is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kroxyldyphic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:36, 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. jni 11:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Refai

Non-notable vanity. Complete contents: Danish Refai is a teen studying in Mahatma Gandhi International School. He loves playing football and he swims fast. He likes to eat cheese a lot. he dosen'y like to have butter. He is a nice boy Bovlb 03:58:51, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. —Cleared as filed 05:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 08:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teen vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but recommend to subject the savory and healthful aspects of butter. -EDM 20:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 21:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity, nothing more. --Etacar11 23:13, 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. jni 11:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chantal

• Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. -- Zantastik talk 08:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All it needs is to be wikified. -- Crevaner 10:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. --Nikai 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem notable. tregoweth July 6, 2005 04:11 (UTC)
• Delete: does not seem notable. --InformationalAnarchist 04:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. —Cleared as filed. 06:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, amateur models are not notable. Dcarrano 16:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article. --Scimitar 16:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This not the Ford Modelling Agency. --LeoTheLion 19:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity royblumy 21:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per royblumy. Possibly create disambig page of notable Chantals. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 02:55:57 Z
• Delete, vanity --nixie 04:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem notable. Interslice
• Delete. An unnotable amateur model. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Someone's hobby. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Geogre 16:47, 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 DELETE. jni 11:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sagal issak

Non-notable vanity. Complete text: Sagal is a woman reknown for her incredible beauty, adventurous spirit and her endless love for her husband Remco Bovlb 04:04:28, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable vanity. —Cleared as filed. 06:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn vanity royblumy 21:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity, undoubtedly written by Sagal or Remco. --Etacar11 23:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:50, 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 merge to Orc (Warcraft). The merge has already been carried out, so nothing left but to redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Orcs

Delete as gamecruft. --Halidecyphon 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete If we start posting stuff like this, then this place will just turn into a giant game manual --Dr Ingel 01:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment - How is this different from the Pokemon stuff? -- Dpark 20:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Pokemon people point out that Pokemon is a TV show and set of stories, and individual pokemon have a following and are as notable fictional characters as many cartoon characters or characters in books. Personally, however, I believe that most of the Pokemon do not deserve article as they are not notable. Note that the Pokemon rule is merely a rule of thumb accepted by some wikipedians, and by no means the law of the land. Whether you accept the Pokemon rules or not, Chaos Orcs are far less notable than Pokemon because they do not have movies about them, cult followings, or life stories.--Halidecyphon 21:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that I should point out that this article isn't about individual Chaos Orcs, but about the group as a whole. And I daresay that Warcraft has a significant following. Perhaps someone would be willing to improve the article. I don't know enough about Chaos Orcs to input anything useful, but I bet if someone took the time to lay out their abilities and weaknesses, and whatever else, the article would flesh out.
    • Comment. The pokemon deserve their own articles if we are to accept WP:FICT as policy (or pseudo policy), by point 3: Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. --Jonathan Christensen 06:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Not all pokemon do. Hiding 16:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote for the time being. I was originally going to vote delete, and then I was going to vote to merge it into an article such as List of species in Warcraft (species? units?) but similar articles have been deleted in the past. If there seems to be a consensus that lists of units in computer games are not notable, then it hardly seems the units themselves are notable. The WP:FICT policy appears to suggest merging in point 2: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. However, if we were simply to delete that list at some later time as gamecruft, that doesn't make any sense. --Jonathan Christensen 06:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I say merge it with the Orc (Warcraft) article and then delete it. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, quite right. I didn't realize that article already existed. I now also vote for a merge and delete (or possibly redirect). -- Dpark 04:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

• Merge with Orc (Warcraft), but leave a redirect behind per the GFDL license requiring authors to be attributed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I have no problems with a redirect, but for the record the GFDL doesn't require a redirect per se - an admin could do a history merge. Radiant_>|< 13:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Manik Raina 15:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Orc (Warcraft). Dcarrano 16:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Orc (Warcraft) and redirect. Darksidex 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge dangit! --Xperment 19:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above royblumy 21:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Orc (Warcraft). The Chaos Orcs were in WarCraft for like three levels and they were kind of lame anyway. RMG 22:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:04, 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. jni 11:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Akj

Google search on name yeilds nothing as spelled, and very little as google suggest it be spelled. However thare are two groups under the second spelling and I know next to nothing about sikhism. So, Delete, but open to information. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established, promo. JamesBurns 08:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 21:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:50, 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. jni 11:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Gunz

Not yet notable brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable. --InformationalAnarchist 04:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 21:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:50, 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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890

This "article" has such minimal content about the book (an advertisement that's practically a dicdef) that it's just listcruft, which is enough to delete it to begin with, but this list in particular I find is also a blatant violation of WP:NOT Indiscriminate Information. The Literate Engineer 04:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, book is not notable (#1,775,232 at Amazon, 1 review) and therefore list is not. Dcarrano 16:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when has Amazon been an arbiter of notability? (Not a vote). Secretlondon 15:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• As plenty of pages link to this [7] as a reference I say keep and prune the list. Secretlondon 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real, albeit rare, reference book. jni 11:28, 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 speedy delete, see my comment below, Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakkaran

Personal attack/vanity. Unencyclopedic. "He was an under performer in all examinations. His hobby is drinking and fall unconscious in city gutters." Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 04:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I hope he finds a more healthful hobby. —Cleared as filed. 06:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• I am going to speedy delete this as an attack page containing personal information (home address). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 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.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --Michael Snow 15:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Luther Manson

I don't think just being Manson's son justifies to be on wikipedia if he never did anything else worth listing here. (clem 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• Don't delete...merge it into Charles Manson --Zpb52 01:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything in this article is already in Charles Manson's article. Unless he's done anything... even him apologizing for his dad's ways or him joining his father or something. As is, this article is useless and should be deleted. Redwolf24 03:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Manson as per precedent on other offspring of the famous. Xoloz 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Manson, nothing to merge. JamesBurns 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the content on Charles Manson so people can actually find it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. royblumy 21:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manson, nn on his own. --Etacar11 23:19, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --Michael Snow 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Manson, Jr.

I don't think just being Manson's son justifies to be on wikipedia if he never did anything else worth listing here. Also his suicide is mentioned on Manson's main page already. (clem 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• Delete nn MajorLeagueSoccerFreak777

• Keep 68.7.91.130 04:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. A redirect to Charles Manson wouldn't be terrible CDC (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Manson as per precedent on other offspring of the famous. Xoloz 05:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Charles Manson. JamesBurns 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above royblumy 21:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, same as his brother. --Etacar11 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This is obviously a stub, but it may flesh out more in the future. Phoenix_orb 14:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep or redirect please but do not erase it Yuckfoo 17:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There must be something more to say about this guy. People are interested in Manson and everything about him. Sons of infamous people, who go on to kill themselves, deserve an entry. --Gantlord 14:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheatplanet

Non-notable game cheat site. Vanity page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)}

Speedy Delete as advertising, but the content of the site appears to be decent, perhaps add as an external link to Cheat_code --Mysidia 11:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy nn royblumy 21:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:51, 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. Vote by anon under false signature ignored. Postdlf 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ChessRally

Currently this is simply a vanity page, although if it is notable enough, it might be recoverable. Icelight 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

• Delete Icelight 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 16:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as an avid chess player I've not heard of it. The article also reads like a advertisement, so if there is a decision to keep it, it must be rewritten. Barneygumble 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable product, even for casual chess players. Clean it up and make it more objective if you feel it is vanity. royblumy 21:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there are plenty of chess playing programs and this one isn't notable. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This has been heavily revised (to be non advertisement-ish, which was NOT the intent) since all previous votes, and it IS actually a notable software entry. It's newness to the industry belies its growing popularity, hence some have not yet heard of it... clearly some have :-) If you all feel it needs further revision, no problem, just post in discussion, and I'll be happy to oblige (P.S. If I'm not allowed to vote on my own article, then I humbly apologize in advance!) Rcryniak 22:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You certainly allowed to vote, but as an article author would be nice if you provide some proof that the software is notable (see request for references on Talk page). Please also indicate if you ask people on external discussion board to come here and vote. I see votes of people who never was on Wikipedia before start appearing. Andreas Kaufmann 07:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Looking at the revisions, the latest seems good, worthy of keeping I think. The product is getting fairly well known, I've used it myself and I'm friends with several International FIDE tournament players and I know a couple of them use it. Dutch1124 0:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 0 edits. Andreas Kaufmann 07:51, 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. Postdlf 05:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese whisper marketing

Finishing this old nomination. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 04:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possible merge, barely encyclopedic, and written so as to leave the definition obscure. Nova Cygni 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utterly unencyclopedic CDC (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to buzz marketing. Fuzheado | Talk 05:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising, and then redirect to buzz marketing. Dcarrano 16:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Fuzheado --royblumy 21:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic.--GrandCru 03:30, 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. Postdlf 05:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Wolfe

• delete. Not notable. -Wiccan Quagga 09:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Wiccan Quagga. Phoenix2 04:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: does discovering a number of asteroids make you notable? Meelar (talk) 14:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • IMO, not unless the asteroids in question are notable. Delete. Dcarrano 16:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete (hate to do it to a fellow astronomer), but I think he'd need a few more honors to make over the bar into notability: Awards/discovering comets/moons/having something named for him. Did he obtain a PhD? Where is he now? --Etacar11 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 21:40, 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. Postdlf 05:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlassian Software Systems

There is nothing noteworthy or encyclopedic about this company; it appears to be nothing more than a corporate ad and link to the company website. —Cleared as filed. 01:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. Even "USA" and "Sydney, Australia" are external links to their website! -- RHaworth 08:55, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant link spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising for non-notable company. Dcarrano 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert royblumy 21:40, 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 already redirected. Actually this should not be done before the VFD debate is over. Anyway, no big deal. I'll let the redirect stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timbs

This article isn't encyclopedic, it's just a dictionary definition and maybe a neologism (found no links on Google about this definition, but it does link to Timberland). —Cleared as filed. 21:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 08:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't know it had been posted on Vfd, so I just redir'd it to Timberland Corporation. Niteowlneils 16:42, 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. jni 11:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Raup

Hardly an article, and a search on Google for "michael raup sheep husbandry" returns nothing indicating it could have any merit. —Cleared as filed. 21:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is any verification that this is true. All edits by 65.216.119.103, the author of this article, are vandalism. Angela. 21:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, {{test4}} on talk page for this IP. -WCFrancis 03:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. royblumy 21:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 23:28, 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. jni 11:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avanade

Nothing but a corporate ad/self-promotion. —Cleared as filed. 21:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Language includes: "Our people help customers ...", flagging it as promo material, certainly not encyclopedic or NPOV. Notability not established, there are thousands of MicroSoft thralls partners.--WCFrancis 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merely because it's advertising (and not because it has two parents from hell, Micro$oft and not-Arthur-Andersen). -- Hoary 12:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. royblumy 21:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:51, 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. jni 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy-Lee Robinson

Political vanity page. 62.252.64.18 21:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 100% vanity Robinh 12:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What we need is a "Wikibio", but as we don't have one, aim the delete cannon at it and max the power settings. Forgotmytea 13:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and POV. DS1953 21:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course it's POV, most likely a copyvio from somewhere. Phoenix2 04:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copy&pasted from bio on (pre-election) BC Green Party website. I remeber seeing this a long time ago, and according to the history this VfD has been up since April 25. -maclean25 05:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment By the way, she did not win. maclean25 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probably copyvio about unsuccessful election candidate who is apparently not obviously notable for other reasons. She works as a legal assistant. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Deathphoenix 13:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete losing minor-party provincial legislature candidates. Meelar (talk) 14:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have nothing against the Green Party, but this page is vanity, has POV, and is unverifiable as the external link is broken. ·Zhatt· 15:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity royblumy 21:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn political vanity, with photo included. --Etacar11 23:29, 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. jni 11:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clever

This article has nothing of real value in it.

CurtisWoodworth 7 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

• Delete. POV. Lunar Jesters 8 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
• Delete, worthless. Phoenix2 05:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no relevant AMG entry I could find. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --royblumy 21:33, 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. jni 11:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dalton marks

A summer job at MedSeek and having hobbies does not automatically make a subject notable... --Mysidia 05:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Bovlb 05:36:02, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, NN. Xoloz 05:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the usual reasons. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:52, 19 July 2005

• Delete - non-notable --Forig 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(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. jni 11:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Super Fun Guys

No google hits. Nothing to establish notability, and much against it. Bovlb 05:27:01, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, NN. Xoloz 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Speedy delete the article about the guy responsible. - Lucky 6.9 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:52, 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. jni 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibal City Tours

Fictitious entity from books and author for which I was unable to find anything notable on Google. Joel7687 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable --InformationalAnarchist 05:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Friday 20:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --royblumy 21:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 19:51, 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. Postdlf 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with lists in the lyrics

Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, undefined (and perhaps undefinable), excessively recursive, listcruft Xoloz 06:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete per all of the above. What's next, List of songs with lists of songs with lists in the lyrics? --Angr/_{tOk t@ mi} 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a well-defined type of song. And since List of songs with lists of songs with lists in the lyrics is a sublist of this list, we only need this list for now. ;-) —BenFrantzDale 07:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree -- Are two things a "list"? "Three"? "Abraham, Martin, and John" for example? Should that be here? Without some more restrictive criteria, at the very least, it will more remarkable to be a song with no list in its lyrics. Mind you, that is only one of my objections. Xoloz 08:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Another hypothetical that I find troubling for this list: Without too much stretching, one can reasonably call The Battle Hymn of the Republic a "list of actions taken by (or in response to) God" or The Star-Spangled Banner a "list of impressions recorded at the Battle of Fort McHenry. Without serious clarification, list really is a term in the eye of the beholder. Xoloz 11:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the criteria as an explicit list of ten or more items, given examples (The Alphabet Song and We Didn't Start The Fire), and removed a few items as a result (notably 99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall); more vetting is still needed. —BenFrantzDale 16:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why ten? Why not nine, or 25, or 1,000? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. It was a first stab at clarifying the criteria for inclusion and in response to Xoloz's valid criticism that 3 items a list song does not make. Perhaps "The majority of the lyrics must constitute an explicit list." If you have a better idea, feel free to change the criteria. —BenFrantzDale 00:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I don't believe there are criteria for such a list that would make it encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable, irrelevant - Skysmith 09:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, great list. Kappa 10:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ridiculous, unencyclopedic. Taught me a great word, listcruft. I'll bear it in mind. Naturenet | Talk 11:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete silly listcruft --Doc (?) 12:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclo. Radiant_>|< 13:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Xoloz. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but include exactly what a "list" is in the article. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's the point of this? None I can see. Nabla 15:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is exactly the sort of list that makes me want to propose a "Lists may only be permitted as part of larger articles that could stand on their own as articles with the list removed. Otherwise, attempts to form a list as an article must be merged with a legitimate and actual article, converted into a category, or deleted." as a policy. The Literate Engineer 15:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It looks like a good starting point to further clarify what lists are for. I didn't gave it much thought, so it may have some loopholes, but why don't you raise that issue on Wikipedia talk:Lists? I'll watch for it. Nabla 00:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The inclusion of songs like "Kokomo" and "Walk on the Wild Side" make it clear that one man's "list" is another's "motif", "repeated phrase" or "chorus". Too subjective, and honestly accomplishes nothing anyway. The purpose of lists is to shed light on the underlying subject, e.g., the list of songs about drugs helps us understand how drugs are regarded in pop culture. Do we learn anything about "lists" from this article? Obviously not. Dcarrano 16:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree it needs cleanup but with the clarification I gave, that cleanup is now possible. I don't think we learn anything about lists from the article, but we do learn about songs and what people like to sing about. For me this list answers the question "What other songs are like The End Of The World As We Know It and We Didn't Start The Fire?" It may not be a deep question, but I find it fascinating. —BenFrantzDale 17:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as per BenFrantzDale --royblumy 21:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your trying, but the "list" needs more of a definition than a number (and any number has the problem of arbitrariness.) Blowin in the Wind is quite literally a list of 12 questions punctuated by its chorus. It is a list with more than ten items, but it isn't what you're looking for (I think). I honestly don't know how to qualify things to get what I think you want. Together with others, even if you did have a foolproof qualification, I'm not sure the list serves an encyclopedic purpose. It would be possible to start a List of songs whose first lyric word is "Since", and that might be curiously amusing, but it is essentially an exercise in the absurd. Xoloz 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Trying to get at a definition is tricky. I'd say Blowin' in the Wind doesn't count because it has a collection of sentences not a list in the typographic sense like We Didn't Start The Fire. (If you remove all the "Yes and"s from the lyrics, then it might start to be a list song.) As for List of songs whose first lyric word is "Since", I don't think there's any point to lists of songs when the list could be derived from a complete database of lyrics and metadata. (The same goes for List of songs by Muddy Waters.) I see the song lists as a good place to collect songs that fall into more-essoteric categories. —BenFrantzDale 06:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • • When you it put it that way, I am afraid the list violates no original research. See, if there is an esoteric genre of "long, rapid-fire list" songs, there should be an article on that topic, citing primary sources that have discussed this genre. One can't "sneak" esoteric, original research into the encyclopedia by way of a list. I think my point here echoes the Literate Engineer above. Xoloz 08:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But it made me laugh. Moncrief 21:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting idea, but firm criteria for inclusion need to be developed. Gamaliel 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unencyclopedic, etc. --Joel7687 10:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as subworthless listcruft. Although there must be a few hundred rap songs that would have fulfilled the criteria for this list (especially as every rap song sounds like an angry man reciting his shopping lists). Proto t c 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep please there is nothing wrong with this list Yuckfoo 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to collect a random group of objects together using a set of esoteric criteria. Indrian 15:50, July 19, 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. I see only one useful vote after the cleanup, but there's no point relisting it on VfD because he would plainly be kept. -Splash 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willie Bloomquist

This is a joke and not a real article. There is a question as to whether he is of enough signifigance to earn a Wiki page. D Wilbanks 07:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

At least keep it true and clean and let it stay. Stop messing with it folks.

Not a real article. As a Seattle Mariners fan, I like to rag on Bloomquist as much as any other fan, but Wiki is not the place to do it. Bloomquist is not really of enough signifigance to earn his own Wiki page.

It's fine now. I don't see why he wouldn't deserve a page, he's a MLB regular and linked to by two other articles. He's also a local fan favorite.

There's nothing wrong with a Wiki page for Bloomquist; the problem is the kids who keep changing the entry thinking it is "funny."

• As the article seems to be cleaned up now, keep--subject is a Major League Baseball player, all of whom are inherently notable. Meelar (talk) 14:28, 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. jni 11:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progress of true science

Looks like either original research, or some tidbit better merged elsewhere --Bletch 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Bletch 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article itself admits neologism ("unknown.") Nothing to merge because the article really says nothing... Franklin believed that science would continue to progress and make our lives better... good for him. Dcarrano 17:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee Wizzy…☎ 17:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above royblumy 21:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. — mark ✎ 21:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more original research from Roylee. If the Franklin quote is legitimate, though, make sure Wikiquote has a copy. — Gwalla | Talk 01:01, 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. jni 11:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voidmazun

Vanity-- BMIComp (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with User:Voidmazun. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. User didn't contribute any edits apart from the ones to his own user and talk pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn vanity royblumy 21:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:31, 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. Postdlf 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collection of chess problems

Mere collection of chess problems doesn't belong to encyclopedia. More appropriate place for this stuff is e.g. Wikibooks. Andreas Kaufmann 21:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't even show the problems directly but links to yet another page on the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Mgm says, all it does is link to tactical chess problems which doesn't look like it should be hanging around either. Dcarrano 17:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless royblumy 21:37, 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. Feel free to recreate as an appropriate redirect if you desire. Postdlf 06:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CookBookWiki

Webvertisement --Amoore 20:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect A redirect to the described website could prove helpful. --Soltak 00:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't redirect an article to an external link. Redirects are for article space → article space only, except in special cases. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement, WP:NOT a web guide. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, soft redirect to our Wikibooks Cookbook. Radiant_>|< 14:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, then redirect to Wikibooks Cookbook. Dcarrano 17:08, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal reality

Recent and not that well-known, likely vanity/self-promotion; Alexa ranking is 3,554,475 at the moment Joel7687 09:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -not notable, yet. Couldn't find any notable reference to the site outside of itself. Naturenet | Talk 11:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 21:37, 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. Postdlf 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ManageEngine OpManager

Advertising -- Ferkelparade π 09:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement for product/service Manik Raina 15:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:52, 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. Postdlf 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon del Pozo

Don't see any notability here, am i wrong? Feydey 09:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly, but I'll give him my thanks for protecting the city/country :-) Dcarrano 17:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there are many police in the world. Friday 20:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete impressive but still nn. --Etacar11 00:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with impressive human being, but not notable for wikipedia. --Vizcarra 18:50, 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. Postdlf 06:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GASH

Unencyclopedic, unnotable. Delete MAdaXe 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. There is band called Gash listed on allmusic.com but it appears to be a different band to that of the article. JamesBurns 10:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing verifiable here. Friday 20:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete someone changed it to the slang dic def, nn either. --Etacar11 00:30, 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. Postdlf 06:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Saklad

Tagged as a speedy by User:Lucky 6.9 with the reason "Please tell me this doesn't have to stay up here for five days. Please." Sorry, but none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion are fulfilled. But here is a delete vote for non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable kook. Dcarrano 17:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

i'm confused. is the writer[8] being defined as a notable kook or me? which makes me[9] notable again. but what do i know about these things? oh well.-- dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 04:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, not verifiable. Friday 20:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if all this guy does is post in blogs...nn. --Etacar11 00:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Explicitly states that he is non-notable in first sentence. ~ WCFrancis 00:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User talk:Donwarnersaklad where people can contribute writing for the don saklad obsessives.-- dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 04:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure that User:Donwarnersaklad is actually Don? Yeah, I know, it can be hard to tell... -- Kaszeta 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that the person writing the User:Donwarnersaklad material isn't actually Don Saklad (if it's Don's account, he's letting someone use it). It's not in the real Don's writing style. -- Seth Finkelstein

somebody's figured out that i got a cutout -- dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. He's been a long-time eccentric usenet personality, and has plenty of web pages dedicated to him [10][11][12], unlike your typical small-potatoes run-of-the mill kook. He also seems to get around, I've seen him on Slashdot[13], Livejournal[14], and even here. If Archimedes Plutonium gets a page, Don deserves one too. -- Kaszeta 14:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• (Invalid vote) Strong Keep for me too. I am one of the moderators of a well-established library-related listserv that is one of the few places his posts are welcome, per listserv policy. Don is weird, and in the multitude of places he posts his stuff, it is rarely on point. But there is something notable about being the town crazy. He forms a kind of reality check for the rest of us. I believe in this respect he has achieved a kind of notability that is worthy of inclusion. Like his posts, you don't have to read his entry if you aren't interested. James Quinn --Jamesiegod 18:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• First edit.

• Delete. I remember this guy from some library listservs I used to be on, but he's just some troll. Gamaliel 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with Ad hominem personal attacks

• Delete nn per Etacar11 --Gunmetal 21:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Jamesiegod and Kaszeta. Don's likely just as famous as Jessamyn_West, and we do keep information on trolls you know. John Hubbard 12:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable internet personality. JZ 00:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• (Invalid vote - please log in if this is the correct user). Agree with above user, notable internet personality. skye 22:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (vote actually by 24.86.37.105 (talk · contribs))
• (Invalid vote) Strong Keep. Don Saklad is very prolific and well-known on the Internet. --Takeel 17:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• First edit.

• Okay, so my vote was marked "first edit", and the informal policy that goes with that cheeses me off enough in itself...but why was it also marked with the words "invalid vote"? Same reason? --Takeel 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm also cheesed that somebody edited my own vote text, but I'm not about to start an edit war over it. Just wanted to make my displeasure known. --Takeel 22:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually not a vote. You are currently allowed to comment but not vote. In time your vote will always count. - Tεxτurε 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• That's such arcane criteria. That looks like criteria made up by throwing dice. -- dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu
• I've looked for the policy page that mentions this, and I couldn't find it. Could I please be pointed in its general direction? --Takeel 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Discussion. Gamaliel 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• (Invalid vote) Keep. Not your run-of-the-mill nutcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.73.215 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2005

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with Ad hominem personal attacks

• Delete, entirely non notable. Hall Monitor 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a prolific poster around the internet is not grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Indrian 15:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• (Invalid vote) keep - he's a well-known kook with a long history of kookness 24.24.44.7 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with Ad hominem personal attacks

• How do you get the statistics relative to the article?... at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Saklad Hits. Hourly hits. Referers. Et al.
  • Dunno, but that's not relevant to a vfd discussion anyway. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Sorry Don. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:34, July 22, 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. Postdlf 06:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Llama tribune

Vanity page, effectively an advert for an external website. Thedatastream 11:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - indeed a vanity/ad page. No other notability demonstrated. Naturenet | Talk 11:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog (not on Alexa, 0 Google hits. Dcarrano 17:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 21:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blogger self promotion. JamesBurns 07:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:54, 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. Postdlf 22:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brennon Guilbeau

No indication as to why he should be here — no notability mentioned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooops; when I first nominated this for deletion, I made a mess on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, which neither I nor anyone else noticed. This VfD has therefore not been officially posted. I've posted it properly now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Not written by the subject himself, it seems, but by someone close to him. I dub it "friendity" and call for delete. Meelar (talk) 21:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• no, you guys are all wrong. he is a local legend in new iberia. plus he eats hamburgers with a spoon. if that isn't famousnessnessness, i don't know what is. (Unsigned comment by 66.80.192.58 (talk · contribs))
• Right. Delete. -- Hadal 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and please also note Greth Dunn, III, which I nom'd for a speedy delete. jglc | t | c 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, this article does NOT need to be here. Please Delete (Unsigned vote by 170.20.96.59 (talk · contribs))
• Delete. Oy. Dcarrano 02:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, you can't eat hamburgers with a spoon. -Splash 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, you have to use a spoon if you do not have any teeth left, but I digress :-7 Delete anyway - Skysmith 09:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 12:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Please delete. I am actually the person who this article is about and I wanted to see how long it would stay online. It has been there further than what I expected. I won't be offended if it is gone by tomorrow.--66.80.192.58 20:03, 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. Postdlf 06:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Birch

An advertisement for the author's books. -- Hoary 12:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The IP that created the article has now radically shortened it. -- Hoary 12:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable author. 1 book at Amazon, sales rank #356,644, no reviews. Dcarrano 17:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 08:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / advert - Tεxτurε 19:55, 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. Postdlf 06:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Glicker

Initially listed as a copy vio, but according to the talk page, the person concerned agrees to it being here. However, this person is not very notable. Kurando 12:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, yuck! Flowerparty 16:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa for his website = 397,775. May be a very successful programmer/entrepreneur (although, hmm, why no NAMES for his various "multi-million dollar" accomplishments?), but unless that has given him fame, which it apparently hasn't (35 Google hits, I don't think it much matters. Dcarrano 17:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Friday 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 01:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable in the gaming world for his work, as well as notable for his podcast which is regularly one of the highest (if not the highest) ranked gaming podcast. The article would need some work, of course, and I would be willing to do this. There are no names for his multi-million dollar accomplishments because of agreements he signed when selling his company. Also, Steve regularly releases information on his site, especially concerning the game Spore, well before most, if not all other news sources get the information. syphonbyte
• Keep If you search for his radio show Gaming Steve on Google you end up with about 3600 hits which is what his "claim to fame" would be. FYI, I heard about his site through a friend who heard about him through work in a small town up in Canada. So he is definately generating a following. Sure the entry needs to be cleaned up but as someone who hopped on wiki to learn more about him, I can attest that I was personally interested in learning about him... so it's not just vanity thing going on. Granite T. Rock 00:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just had an after thought. It might be appropriate to rename the article "Gaming Steve" which would outline his show. Part of the entry would include his bio info as contained on this page. Granite T. Rock 00:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a good idea. The article already contains more information on the show than Steve himself. syphonbyte

• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - His podcast is one of the highest rated gaming podcasts, so I think he is definetly notible. That fact should be added to the article though. Also, it does need a little bit of cleanup, but that could definetly be done Spizzma 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Postdlf 06:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people with a double-barrelled name

Silly, unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, listcruft. Ask yourself - 'who would look up this article and for what purpose?' --Doc (?) 12:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep! Obviously I have an interest here, as I created this thing, but allow me to vote nonetheless. I have asked myself this question. The answer, *I* would look up this article, to find people with a double-barreled name! You see, if you ask a silly person about a silly article, you get a silly answer. Brequinda 12:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc Glasgow. No-one is going to look this up and the names are UK-skewed anyway (two contestants from present series of Big Brother?) David | Talk 12:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; trivia, unmaintainable and overly broad. Radiant_>|< 13:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! (close to Strong Keep) - yes it's silly, but these people are all notable, and agree with Brequinda that this is actually an encyclopedic gem! (maybe its just a Brit thing....) - would probably recommend Rename to 'List of Celebrities with Double-Barrelled name'. - Petesmiles talk
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Double-barrelled name appears to be a neologism based on raw number of Google hits, but if it's a UK thing, maybe that's why I've never heard it. In any case, if this article is kept, it needs to be renamed to something that non-Brits will recognize. Also, change people to notable people. (Celebrities is also good, but "List of notable x" is how these kinds of lists are usually named, IIRC.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that double-barrelled isn't a neologism, but commonplace British-English phrase. However, I still urge delete as useless. --Doc (?) 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'd say that Brit English should get equal footing with American English. I would suggest that the list focus only on double-barrell last names.Youngamerican 15:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irrelevant list. What's next? List of people where 'xyz' is a substring of their name?. Nabla 15:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • further to previous - how about a Keep, but rename to 'A List of Notable People With Double-barrelled name' - is it in fact possible to have a link in an article name ('scuse ignorance)? - and a personal note - this list is of course fun, and a bit silly - but the collection of these names IMO is encyclopedic in the broad Wiki sense, and brings interesting questions of class / power relationships to mind - and could be a useful resource for related research, that's my two pennies! Petesmiles 15:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But how does this bring power/class questions to mind? How is it useful for related research? I can see no use for this! What about 'list of celebrities whose surname relates to an occupation - or whose middle name begins with a vowel - or who don't have middle names - are these also encyclopedic? Stop the nonsense here! Delete --Doc (?) 15:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", including "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Double-barrelled names quite rightly have an article. Various examples in there (as it has for triple-barrelled names) are certainly appropriate. A list of all of them? Not a significant enough common thread, even if it gets moved to list of celebrities. Make sure the most famous examples are in Double-barrelled name, and then I'd say delete the list. I suppose you could make a category of it, though. The Literate Engineer 15:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another pointless list. -R. fiend 16:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete utterly useless list, basically information-free CDC (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify, list is objectively definable but as Doc points out, sheds no additional light on any encyclopedic topic. I assume here that the claims above that "double-barrelled name" is the best way to describe this are correct. Dcarrano 17:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, potentially huge and unmaintanable. Martg76 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wtf, there are millions of such people!!!  Grue  21:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I hate most of these 'list of ...' lists but this is particularly pointless. Redlentil 21:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless, unencyclopedic, and unmaintainable list. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 08:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable, irrelevant since most people with double-barrelled names have nothing else in common - Skysmith 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. At most, add notables to double-barrelled name. -Sean Curtin 06:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MakeRocketGoNow 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Indrian 16:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian_Rugby_Team

I don't think teams that have never qualified for a world cup should have a page, 92nd in the world - we do not need 92 articles on national rugby union teams as the standard of play falls very quickly after the first 10. GordyB 12:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep We have articles on every team in the NFL and NHL. We have articles on every national team the US has for every sport (whether they're any good or not). So no reason we can't have one for the Indian Rugby Team (though it needs work done on it to expand it). Ben W Bell 13:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ben W Bell. Meelar (talk) 14:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although possibly move to Indian national rugby union team as per all the other rugby union national teams. Sam Vimes 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to the standard name form. The world doesn't need Wikipedia, but let's try to make it as comprehensive as possible anyway. CalJW 16:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to proper name. We have an article on the Monaco national football team (and every other national football team in the world). I would love if every national team in every notable sport had an article on Wikipedia. -- Elisson • Talk 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I'm going to lose this. The difference between the Indian rugby union team and the Monaco football team is that 99.9% of Indians have never heard of rugby union where as in Monaco football is the number one summer sport and if there wasn't an article on Monagesque football there'd be no articles on Monagesque sport at all. I don't think it is possible to expand the article, the Indian rugby union don't have any staff at all and as a consequence have no website or press officers. I'd rather see one page with mini articles on 'minnow nations'.GordyB 21:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've expanded the article a bit now, and as India's results improve, there's still more to beef it out with. Who knows, one day an Indian rugby fan will expand it even more. There are 13,200 players ([15]) after all, some of them are bound to have computers. Although, if you wish to start an article on all the minnow nations and incorporate this content...Be bold! Sam Vimes 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag as I'm obviously on a loser. Don't see the point in waiting 7 days.GordyB 23:25, 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 due to lack of consensus. Postdlf 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darvish-khan

Hardly worthy of an encylopeadia. NN A curate's egg 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep : He is an Iranian musician of quite a repute though the page needs an overhaul. I found quite a few (running into at least half a dozen pages on google) references to him on google. His claim to fame is not his accident but his music. The page needs to furnish more detail about his musical life. We may not want to remove a page about a prominent Iranian musician just because the author of the page did not focus on his music but put a silly reference to a traffic accident instead. Manik Raina 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete First Iranian killed in a car accident? Nothing on Google for that claim. Seems very dubious, until verified this short stub should be deleted. JamesBurns 08:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• I don't buy that being in a car accident would make him notable. However, he is a musician... so can any evidence be provided of him passing WP:MUSIC? If so, keep. Until then, weak delete. Radiant_>|< 12:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• According to [16], he "died at the age of 54, on 22 of November 1926, in an accident. His carriage was hit by a lorry automobile which was very rare at that time." (Maybe not the first, but apparently one of the early ones.) No vote yet; I'll wait to see if further information is added to the page. --Metropolitan90 01:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Notify me if anything is actually added to this article - Tεxτurε 19:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.

He is famous in Iran. --Mani1 20:39, 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 merge with Matt Hardy. Hmm... I don't really know if the contributors to that article will be too pleased with adding this list of trivia, but if they dislike it they can start trimming and editing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mattfacts

Doesn't warrant separate article. Merge to Matt Hardy. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Matt Hardy under 'MattFacts' as was previously the case. -Soltak 16:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Soltak. Dcarrano 17:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. This trivia doesnt warrant a separate article. JamesBurns 08:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Would make Matt Hardy's article to long. — Moe ε 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Then I might suggest removing them completely. This information, while possibly valuable to a rabid Matt Hardy fan, has little real encyclopedic value. I alter my vote to Merge (as above) or Delete.

• Proposal. How about merging a trimmed down version of the list to the Matt Hardy article. It doesn't seem necessary to have all of them added. Perhaps take the most interesting or information and leave the rest out. -Soltak 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. My vote is still to Keep but if your going to keep them, keep them all, not just some

• Keep Great database that harbors all of Matt Hardy's important facts. -- pvegeta 15:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jakkass

Another gamer vanity.... Delete -- Gunmetal 14:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, advertising and neologism wrapped up in one tasty package. Dcarrano 17:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete Vanity and ad support regular VfD procedures, borderline nonsense. ~ WCFrancis 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gamer vanity. JamesBurns 08:12, 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. Postdlf 07:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smokey pokerson

Neologism claimed to be a pleasant greeting or statement of affirmation. No googles. Meelar (talk) 14:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism, though I may start using it myself. Dcarrano 17:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't encourage them! ;) Meelar (talk) 20:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Smokey pokerson! Dcarrano 20:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neolog. Are you sure the nonsense level doesn't qualify it for Speedy deletion? ~ WCFrancis 01:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:13, 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 already SPEEDY DELETED.[17] Postdlf 07:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pork and egg

Delete.Not Notable and badly written. A curate's egg 14:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete another neologism. Meelar (talk) 14:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, joke article from 213.249.155.237 who has also given us Minguin, Spango and Goompar today. I boldly speedied them. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted vandalism. Stewart Adcock 16:00, 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. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars kid

A fat kid with a stick - is this enclycopeadic? The picture in it looks like a copyvio as well A curate's egg 14:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.' Historical article. Content is very well known about and wide spread. Pogue 14:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.' The article was written in an encylopedic stlye, its content isn't offensive, and definitely was a major internet event that should be catalogued. Adamwankenobi 15 July 2005
• Keep. Wikipedians catalog tons of Internet phenomenon and this is one of them. Hansamurai 14:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very wide-reaching internet phenomenon. If you see evidence of copyvio, you should send it to WP:CP. — Asbestos | Talk 14:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. This page (under another name) has already been through VfD process and survived: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghyslain Raza. — Asbestos | Talk 14:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It was more than just an internet phenomenon and made international news. Bobbis 14:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly notable and encyclopaedic in my view jamesgibbon 15:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable internet meme. As for the image, please review the long list of accepted categories of fair use under Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Screenshots are obvious and uncontroversial. Postdlf 16:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable meme, already survived VfD once before. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghyslain Raza. Hall Monitor 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as everyone promises to stop comparing EVERY Internet phenomena that comes up to the Star Wars Kid. Dcarrano 17:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. (for reasons stated above) CanadianCaesar 20:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely memorable videos, and a google of "star wars kid" return 158,000 hits. Barneygumble 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He may just be some fat kid but this is was big news at the time and wikipedia has chronicled less important internet phenomenons. Jtkiefer 01:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What the fuck already. —RaD Man (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not that my vote will matter much now. ·Zhatt· 05:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable internet meme. 23skidoo 06:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable meme, if unfortunate for Mr. Raza. --Deathphoenix 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As mentioned above, " This page (under another name) has already been through VfD process and survived: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghyslain Raza ". Brookie, please read an article's talk page before nominating it for VfD. You would have seen that it survived deletion already, by a very wide margin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ghyslain_Raza Themindset 01:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would someone want to delete this? As internet memes go, this one is a classic. Icarus 04:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable and very interesting. ‡ Jarlaxle 04:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was referred to this article by New Scientist magazine (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7662). NS was using it to assist readers in understanding the significance of internet communications in social networking (a subject presumably dear to Wikipedian hearts). It is obviously extremely useful reference material. If it needs to be edited to avoid offence, or breach of legality (in which country?), then by all means edit it, but don't delete it! --Timonroad 01:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Question. How many more keeps do we need in a row before we can remove the VfD tag from the article? Themindset 03:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • I do think this was a bad faith nomination and it should be speedily kept. But, it's not the number of votes that matters: We have to wait five days, and sometimes admin leaves the vote open for even longer. It's the waiting game. CanadianCaesar 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Survived VfD already; is notable — Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  04:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Answer. I think we have to wait for the lag time.

• Keep. Wikipedia is a great source for history of the internet itself. As pointed out above, this made international news, etc.
• Keep. This kind of reference is what makes Wikipedia more than just an Encarta want-to-be. Bobak 7:15 (CST), Mon July 18th
• Keep -- a popular Internet phenomenon - Longhair | Talk 17:14, 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 Redirect --Allen3 ^talk 16:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Phillipe Desrosiers

obvious vanity Robinh 14:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• yes, and it doesn't even serve that purpose very well - delete jamesgibbon 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Simple Plan (apparently a notable band) as David Desrosiers already does. I dealt with single articles for Simple Plan members awhile ago, and they were all redirected to the band's page. Someone has decided to create new articles with the band members' middle names included. These guys are not notable outside of the context of their band, and any biographical information on them can go there instead. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Simple Plan per precedent. Dcarrano 17:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect nothing here makes it deserve its own article. --Etacar11 00:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, as per nominator. JamesBurns 08:15, 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. Postdlf 07:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Okaysports

The original VfD tag (from May 26) was fixed to point to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/OkayBlowhards, but it was never mentioned there, so I complete the nomination here. Nabla 14:38:19, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

• Delete, by the reasons given on OkayBlowhards discussion. Nabla 14:38:19, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fantasycruft website. JamesBurns 08:17, 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 merge and redirect to McDonald's massacre. – Rich Farmbrough 02:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Pérez, David Flores Delgado, Omar Alonso Hernández, Matao Herrera, Carlos Reyes, Victor Rivera, McDonald's massacre/victims

Not notable. Should be redirected to McDonald's massacre along with

• David Flores Delgado,
• Omar Alonso Hernández,
• Matao Herrera,
• Carlos Reyes,
• Victor Rivera, and possibly
• McDonald's massacre/victims.
  

brenneman^(t)(c) 14:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've gone to each of those pages and put up a VfD redirecting to this page. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All But Last: Each of those individuals is non-notable, and there is a list of all of them at McDonald's massacre/victims.

• Merge McDonald's massacre/victims into McDonald's massacre: There is a section called "Victims" that currently just links to the /victims page. Merge the list at /victims into the main article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redir everything back into McDonald's massacre--what CABHAN said. Niteowlneils 16:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all but McDonald's massacre/victims, merge McDonald's massacre/victims into McDonald's massacre per CABHAN. Dcarrano 17:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• merge with McDonald's massacre Spearhead 21:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge list with McDonald's massacre, delete individual articles. --Vizcarra 01:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Canhan--nixie 04:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 08:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per Cabhan. The resulting redirects should help discourage recreation of standalone article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sponge X & Y, Oliver Viveier, and Matthew Viveier

Completing nomination, no vote here. Nabla 14:52:05, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

The band seems harmless, but Googling only results in 21 hits. Its only two members are the (assumedly related) Matthew Viveier and Oliver Viveier, both of which seem non-notable. Seems like more bandcruft; Delete. jglc | t | c 13:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: articles' creator blanked them. jglc | t | c 23:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed- I am experimenting and assumed I would have the ability to delete my own articles. Sorry about that!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.191.29 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 July 2005

• Speedy delete, by creator request and no notability established. Nabla 14:52:05, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as test --nixie 04:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. JamesBurns 08:19, 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. Postdlf 07:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kubus media

This page seems spam, it should be deleted Cate 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : Spam Manik Raina 15:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:56, 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. Postdlf 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppressed People

Completing nomination from July 4. no vote here. Nabla 15:04, 13 July 2005 (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 18:48 (UTC)

• Delete. As per DrachenFyre. Nabla 15:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cardcruft. JamesBurns 08:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with redirect to Oppression. Radiant_>|< 12:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per JamesBurns. Pavel Vozenilek 16:34, 21 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. Postdlf 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three Choirs The Vineyard Restaurant

advertisement from an IP address associated with frequent vandalism Doctor Whom 15:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The signature doesn't seem to be showing, but this is from me. Sorry for the inconvenience. Doctor Whom 15:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : Gives no information about where this resturant is, hence of no use to anyone unless they already know about it. Manik Raina 15:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for non-notable business. Dcarrano 18:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:21, 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. Postdlf 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madness Temple

There's no point in it. Madness Temple is an enclosed forum. We rarely get new users. If someone wanted to know about the site, they's actaully visit it or type it into google. This article does not serve a purpose at all. Can we be rid of it again, please?

Jakemcmahon 16:50, July 13, 2004 (GMT)

• Delete, just another message board. Dcarrano 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable message board. JamesBurns 08:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

An apparently non-notable website created a few days ago. So new it does not even have an Alexa ranking. Andris 12:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Vanity/advert; delete. Lupo 12:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Apologies for the idiots from my board (yeah, the temple) trolling this page. Note: the page was created by a non-admin member. I believe you both have a point, and support the deletion of this page. Alreadyinuse 12:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, I'm one of the people that created the Temple. I can assure you it was a member who created the entry. However, if you wish to delete it... then you will, I suppose. Which is a shame, as it's a completely valid site. The only decent case you have against it is the Alexa thing. Never mind. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What he said
• Comment I'm another person from the Temple, yes its new, but why should that mean it gets deleted. freakimus

  Because it is non-noteable, and also because Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lupo 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising new sites; even a "spin-off" of Slashdot probably wouldn't make it here. --Ianb 12:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I guess this is a losing battle (and quite a pointless one at that) but the fact is that Madness Temple is a fast-growing community. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The point isn't that it's a fast-growing community- it's that the temple isn't really a notable site. b3ta has tens of thousands of members, it has got a lot of press attention and it is very well known around the web community. Madness temple has been up for about five days. Hardly anyone knows about it, and it's done nothing particularly important. Yet. Alreadyinuse 13:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. We'll see what happens in the future. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the piece...I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to inform about various issues, including sites on the Internet? I wrote the piece from a neutral standpoint as requested (writing only to inform, as is the whole point, and without giving an opinion either way) and stressed heavily the fact that it was new and a b3ta spin-off of sorts. I didn't realise that Wikipedia only lists major sites; to me, that seems rather moot, as everyone knows all about the major sites anyway. I felt the MT had enough noteworthy stuff on it to deserve a place here, hence my entry. Heh, please don't bash, 'twas an honest mistake if it can really be considered as such. Feral.

• Delete: Wikipedia does not offer web guide functions. Geogre 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - neither notable nor encyclopedic - the sort of article that makes me think that the criteria for speedy deletion should be more widely drawn. Cutler 22:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory/promotional tool. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik_heumiller

NN Vanity --Gunmetal 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE NN Vanity --Horkmiller 12;13, 13 July 2005 (EST)

• Then why in the world did you write it? --Gunmetal 16:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't know personal articles were taboo. I planned on expanding it later, when there was new, and more relevant information. Now that I know it's frowned upon I'll just make an article for the new and more relevant information when that time comes, and not include myself. --Horkmiller 12;25, 13 July 2005 (EST)

• • That's fine - you can make it your User Page, and continue to edit Wikipedia. DS 16:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • An understandable mistake. --Gunmetal 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've speedied it as the user has stated that it was a mistake, and its already at his user page. Hedley 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Forig 12:18, 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. Postdlf 07:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perseus_-_The_Movie

Vanity, not notable film produced by high-school students. BrianSmithson 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Phoenix2 16:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BrianSmithson. Dcarrano 18:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete big hit at the school = not notable here. --Etacar11 00:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:56, 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. Postdlf 07:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernhauser

Non-notable, unrecorded school band du jour. Name alone gets plenty of hits because it is a surname. Bernhauser flores gets no relevant hits other than the band's website. Nothing at allmusic, and the band's article and website don't establish notability. Also, based on their website name matching the contrib's username, self-promotion. Niteowlneils 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Phoenix2 16:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Niteowlneils. Dcarrano 18:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:23, 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. Postdlf 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Moto's Rice Box

Non-notable restaurant, relevant Google results are restaurant guides [18], possible advert, nothing else links to it -- Spotteddogsdotorg 16:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Phoenix2 16:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wow, is that place still around? It was pretty good when I used to go there many years ago, but it's definitely not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable local business. Dcarrano 18:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 08:24, 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 Keep, but may be userfyed by reasonable request of only contributor (presumbly until safely set up). Hedley 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject National anthems

Firstly, I know this is a WikiProject. However, the success of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias has prompted me to create a VfD for this project. My reasoning is that, like several WikiProjects, there is no interest in it whatsoever. In two and a half years only one 'edit' has been made to the page, which was adding it to a category ([19]. Also, i'm unsure theres any need for such a WikiProject. Certainly, when it gets this inactive (the creator was an anon who hasn't edited since 2003) it should just be deleted. Hedley 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If there are clear criteria for deletion of WikiProject pages, someone please point me to them, otherwise I will assume that total inactivity for a year is a reasonable benchmark. -Harmil 17:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that it would be wise to set a policy of permanently deleting WikiProjects, even if they are inactive. A new set of wikipedians could conceivably find the project interesting and be able to work on the foundations of those before them. Perhaps some method of archiving them would be better. --BaronLarf 21:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, given the state of this one, theres nothing to archive. Its three years of bear bones - One list, a badly spelled introduction sentence, and some comments about renaming it which were made in 2002. I doubt theres anything worth keeping anywhere. Hedley 21:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Granted, there are few people who are interested in national anthems (like me). However, unlike the one VFD mentioned above, this is not dealing with POV but of national symbols. Plus, if the main concern is about who will run it, then I will. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since Zscout will run it. Kappa 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zscout370 wants to run it, and I agree with Zscout370's argument about difference between the two WikiProjects being compared. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:04:10 Z
• Delete long term inactive project. JamesBurns 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - wikiprojects have no expiration dates. I would not suggest deleting wikiprojects (unless they are potentially offensive) if they are inactive or even if their purpose would have been fulfilled (which I do not think would happen any time soon). Interest in a specific wikiproject waxes and wanes just like everything else in this world. Note that I am not active in any wikiproject. Maybe Wikiprojects could find a way to periodically try to attract interest of new contributors? - Skysmith 11:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to fix capitalization. The difference between this one and the anti-jewish bias one is that this one is pushing verifiable information, while the latter is pushing POV. We have a category for this, Category:Inactive WikiProjects. Radiant_>|< 12:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Long term inactive project, and I don't buy the archival argument. There is nothing to archive. Hiding talk 07:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Question, can it be moved to my user space after the VFD is finished? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say so, as your the only person interested in it. Theres three votes (one yours) relating to your willingness to run it. Three keep are for not deleting Wikiprojects, three are delete. As the only 'contributor' to it, userfication shouldn't be a problem. Hedley 00:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, just let me know when it happens, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • VfD is closed, feel free to move it. Hedley 00:15, 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. Postdlf 07:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Dozen Furies, Gizmachi, Wicked Wisdom, all created by User:69.177.239.229

All four are seemingly non-notable band entries. Articles' creator was compelled to fill the articles with first-person pov narrative and dialogue. Delete ASAP. jglc | t | c 17:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• At least the first two are copyvios and I've just tagged them as such. I believe the third to be as well and will tag it when I get to it. - UtherSRG 17:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• The third is simply junk and I've deleted it (such articles should be tagged with {{d}} instead of {{vfd}}). - UtherSRG 17:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would do so with no hesitation, but I felt that I'd might as well lump it in with these others on VfD. jglc | t | c 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious vanity, unencyclopedic. - Darksidex 17:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable bands. JamesBurns 08:28, 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. Postdlf 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artext

• I'll risk making myself unpopular here, but this three-month-old article is about a company which I personally can't really establish the notability of. They appear to have only a single product, and it is a trivial product (any script kiddie can write this in 10 minutes); the article doesn't state anything else, nor does their homepage. — Timwi 17:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No claim to notability -Harmil 17:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ad/promotion. --Etacar11 00:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / advert - Tεxτurε 19:58, 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 17:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MAISTRY

This article clearly needs some cleanup/wikification at a minimum and probably needs moving, but does it need deleting? Stewart Adcock 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This page appears to be incorrectly linked from VfD page. Dcarrano 18:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a truly exemplary human being, but neither jobs held nor 5 Google hits for Mervin Maistry suggest notability. Dcarrano 18:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Of the Google hits, most are for a different Mervyn Maistry, a magistrate. There's only one for this particular person. It's just some businessman. A Whois search on the poster's IP checks out to Deutsche Telekom AG: the page says MM lives in Berlin. Vanity page. Tearlach 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:30, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 17:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aura programming language

• Delete – not notable. – Also, the only external link, which is even a Wayback Machine link, is broken. – Timwi 17:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax, all cites from Google search point to the wikipedia article. --Vizcarra 00:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A Brainfuck clone has no chance to get used or useful or notable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 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 already deleted as a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fluorescent toothbrush

Hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax. Fluorescent plastics were invented before 1990, and the only mention of "Earl Retman" that Google can find is here, and the article was the sole contribution of an anonymous IP. Kill it before it metastasizes.DS 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 18:27, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Alli

One of the founders of the website Television Without Pity was previously ruled not notable enough for an entry here; using that reasoning, I don't believe a recapper at the site should be either. Qaqaq 17:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable webmistress with little exposure outside of her website. Her reign of terror ends there. --Madchester 23:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to read her Big Brother recaps. Very funny lady. Of course she isn't getting an article here, though. Mike H (Talking is hot) 14:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What was the rationale for deleting one of TWoP's founders? There are articles for founders of sites such as Kuro5hin, Ain't it Cool News and Metafilter. In terms of notability, TWoP should be at least comparable to those.

  Miss Alli did not found TWoP. That would be Sars, Glark, and Wing Chun (and I believe one of those three came along later). Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  I know that, but one of User:Qaqaq's reasons for deletion is that an article on a TWoP founder was also deleted. I'd like to know why.

• Comment I wasn't part of the vote, but a page for Glark was eliminated within the last few months; I believe non-notability was the reason. Qaqaq 18:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  Not non-notability per se, but the fact that they didn't write it about the person, but rather "Glark," the screen name, and that was a big factor in why it was deleted. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  That's pretty actionable. They don't exactly keep their names secret. It could probably be found by a couple of quick Google searches. Miss Alli, for example, is named Linda Holmes.

  I'd still vote to delete Linda Holmes, because she's a person who writes recaps at a website. I don't find it notable, even though you do (and don't even sign your posts, at that). Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  Easy there. I didn't vote on this. I haven't argued for keeping Miss Alli and I'm not that fussed about what happens to this page. I was just asking about the deletion of an article on a TWoP founder.

  Sorry about that, then. But yeah, that's why it was deleted, from what I read. There was an argument about "why do we write articles on screen names?" "No! Let's delete!" Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it. Thanks for the info. BTW, is there any way of getting an article like Glark undeleted?

  WP:VFU, but you'll have to register an account first. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Online personalities like Maddox or Harry Knowles actually have some mainstream prevalence beyond the internet community. Miss Alli has little notriety outside her inner circle. --Madchester 23:30, July 14, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Euroboy

Non-notable musician. delete UtherSRG 17:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• keep but cleanup. he is lead guitarist of a long-running guitar band that has made international tours, and is definitely attracting English-language music press at the moment. Morwen - Talk 18:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• I always wanted to say this... Redirect to Turbonegro. Dcarrano 18:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notability at best. JamesBurns 08:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not see enough here to establish notability.68.75.117.74 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Dcarrano. Nabla 03:48, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Visible balance

rather uninformative.

(Page was nominated in May by an anonymous user who forgot to finish the listing. I'm just tidying it up. For the record, I agree - delete.)DS 17:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, dicdef. Dcarrano 01:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete short dicdef sub-stub, almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 08:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot see that this dicdef will be of much use to Wiktionary either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 27 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 13:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CCleft

non-notable student group. delete UtherSRG 17:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, most school clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 18:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Schoolcruft. Friday 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 08:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete See wiki policy on notable/non-notable and deletion. More than 500 people worldwide have shown positive/negative interest in CCLeft. They run a publication printed for ~1600 readers. Small but nationally supported political groups have petitioned against CCLeft. Paraesthetic 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoyay

Def of a term used primarily at one website; seems deletable on grounds of both definition-ness and irrelevance. Qaqaq 17:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as a neologism. 4,000 google hits is marginal, though. Brighterorange 19:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, as it discusses a neologism, but doesn't coin it. The term is established, if currently esoteric. Cythraul
• Delete, nnneo. Radiant_>|< 12:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Indrian 17:43, July 19, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steely McMichaels

I don't think this asinine waste of server space meets any CSD. Nonetheless, it is nonsensical and totally devoid of actual informative content. The Literate Engineer 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under criteria 1, lacking context. Also nearly-patent nonsense. --Scimitar 18:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong about CSD. Good to have learned. The Literate Engineer 21:57, 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: 5k, 2d. Counted brand-new author's vote since article clearly created in good-faith. -Splash 01:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O-Pearl

Simple link and image without text. Questionable value PhilipO 18:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable erotic website/owner. Dcarrano 18:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is about a rather famous body modification actress. She is know for the size of her piercings as well as for how much weight you can hang from them. The article does need a good cleanup, is clearly encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand (no pun intended). Agree with Vegaswikian. JamesBurns 08:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vegaswikian. Poli (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Vegaswikian. I was the one who created the article but wasnt' sure what to write. She is unique and well known in the piercing circles. SS goku 18:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as long someone cleans up and expands, as noted above. Themindset 02:07, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Kagan

Vanity --PhilipO 18:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Seems like this user believed he was editing his User: page. --PhilipO 18:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, blanked. Dcarrano 18:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, my mistake. Gkagan 18:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy--Forig 12:01, 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 Speedy Delete as nonsense. Deletion carried out by Tony Sidaway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demunican Party

Nominated for deletion because I can't find any record of this party existing (despite the fact that the article's believable enough internally). I tried searching for anarchists in West Paris but had little luck. I think it's a fake. Jwrosenzweig 18:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (Note: Please forgive any formatting errors here -- I haven't vfd'd something in months.)

Although I am not a user on Wikipedia I live in Paris and have heard rumors of such a party, however it is very low key. I am surprised to see an article on Wikipedia about it and believe that it is important that it remains on. -In-hawn Yeo

• Can you provide any news clippings about the party? If it's an actual organization, that would almost certainly change my position -- as it is, I can't find one site on the Internet that mentions "Demunich Gum", the alleged founder of the party, nor can I find "Demunican" used as a word in any context. Is it possible it's spelled in another way? Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• I live in France and I think I have seen one of the minor parties named Demunican on a list. Although this shall be soon verified as to see if it really does exist, from what I have found so far from past achieves, there are traces of its existence. It would seem that there is a distinct connection between one of the german parties hence questioning its origin. Could it be that the Demunican party is related to Demunication that is a currently a small but influencial movement that is being issued in Paris? - Seijin Oh

Having lived in Paris for a considerable amount of time and being immersed in the french culture for a considerable period of time i can verify the existence of the Demunican Party or more precisely that it is rumored that a party that goes by that name does exist. However there is no existing proof of who actually is a member and hence due to the lack of knowledge regarding them there are no mainstream articles available.- Cormac Vizzard

I am also not a user of Wikipedia but as Mr Yeo, I am also familiar with the party and its whereabouts. I am a resident of the neighbourhood of Passy and come into contact with the headquarters (located on the corner of Rue Beethoven and Rue Chardin). It seems to be very popular with the youths of the nearby schools, but as far as I can tell, it was founded in 2002 and would most probably qualify as a "One Member Party" as described in the article concerning the French Political Parties. It seems to be low key more than anything, and thus would be widely unknown as I doubt their base is strong enough for any actual Political action as

• Well as I study political sciences at Sorbonne I continuously hear about different low-key parties with few members that one can not hear about via the internet. This is the first such group I hear of, and I believe it is important to leave the article on as it will most likely encourage the other small political parties of Paris to make themselves more public rather than remain private and exclusive clubs. It would also greatly aid my research project on such groups, so would you please let the article remain on Wikipedia. -In-hawn Yeo
  • Gentlemen (or ladies), thank you for your comments, but you don't seem to know about Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Unless you can produce reference to this political organization in published books, news media, or some other independent and reliable source, we can't leave it up. If you know it's been mentioned in newspapers, post some links so we can see that. If you don't, it doesn't matter how many people believe the party exists, we can't keep the article up. Jwrosenzweig 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

believe the term party is a glorification of their existance...more like hooliganism with ideals...but then again what is else is a revolution...but it is true they do exist...their most famous appearance was at the St. Lazare metro station where in 5 minutes like a swarm of ants they tore down every piece of advertising in the station and dissapeared...again there is no positive proof to say it was them as officially they don't even exist...but being a journalist in this city you learn things most others don't and I would be willing to wager that it was none other than the Demunicans

• Fortunately I was able to find an article I was looking at about these so called "Demunicans" and I have scanned it and uploaded it to my yahoo webpage. Hopefully this will verify their existence. demunican
• Delete. Political parties unverifiable except from geocities pages don't belong in Wikipedia.--Scimitar 20:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it actually exists as a one-member party, it is not sufficiently notable for
• Delete*Deleteinclusion.Martg76 21:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, and probably not notable if verified. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Who is to say what type of knowledge is notable or not. Isnt the very purpose of an encyclopedia to gather information from as many different resources as humanly possible in order to further our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in today. The fibre that separates an internet encyclopedia from one in binding is that here space is limitless causing knowledge to be limitless and the thirst for knowledge to be perpetual. Hence those for the deletion of this article should think once more about what they are truly asking for and should learn to see the world from outside the claustrophobic environment they choose to inhabit.

• Delete. Nonverifiable, possible hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Scan looks like it's from a really old newspaper, not something recent, but I can't understand French so ?. --Etacar11 00:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake. This is obvious tosh, so I speedied it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:19, 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!) 12:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fullpower

Sems like a non-NPOV promotion to me --PhilipO 18:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poster claims copyright permission, but even if proven, it's just corporate puff for a company that for all practical purposes doesn't exist yet. Tearlach 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 19:59, 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!) 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cillín J. Perera

Vanity PhilipO 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP Actual true and verifiable example of extreme multiple citizenship. If world's tallest man and Jennifer 8. Lee are notable, why not this? (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
• Comment: I have a hard time believing that four passports is an actual world record. It doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult. Is it actually that difficult? -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I wouldn't think four would be the record. If it's "verifyable" (or "verifiable"), please do so. Delete for now. Dcarrano 19:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is pretty difficult due to restrictions placed by governments on multiple citizenship. Also, over the last 10-20 years many governments have withdrawn citizenship rights purely for birth. This means that for the newer generations (those more likely to get two citizenships from parents), one needs to be born abroad in a country that still gives rights (UK, for example, DE, etc, don't) to two parents of different citizenships where both parent citizenships are be transferrable (some countries only transfer from the father or the mother), naturalize to a fourth, and have all four parties accept the arrangement. So, yes, it's not easy. And verifiable through Guinness, i believe. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
• see http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/personalexamples.html for a list of examples. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
  • Comment: I fail to see what this page proves - it has no names, no statistics, no real hard facts. This page couldn't be considered a valuable reference or verification. Still Delete --PhilipO 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• ok, last comment. do a google on 'four citizenships', you get 5 claims. two of these include a chinese citizenship - china doesn't recognize dual citizenship. one of these contain an argentinian citizenship - argentina only recognizes dual with spain. one contains israel, jordan and palestine - palestine is not a recognized state. the final doesn't list the countries. there is nothing claiming 5 or 6. (Unsigned comment by page creator at 84.73.7.39)
  • • Comment In any event, there is no way of verifying that you have four citizenships (apart from your statement). Verification usually requires a reference to a news source or reputable record. IMHO this is still a vanity page, created and mostly maintained by the author about himself. --PhilipO 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, after some research. If this information can be verified by an independent, reliable source, then Mr. Perera probably does deserve a mention in the article on multiple citizenship, but not an independent article unless he becomes particularly famous for it or does something else of interest. On a side note, to the author of the article: great first effort! Why don't you register an account and stick with us? If you are Mr. Perera, we could move this article to your user page. Also, you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Then we can tell who is talking to us. :) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Even if verifiable and true, big freakin' whoop. Delete obvious vanity. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/no verification. --Etacar11 01:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - self-promoting vanity, rather hard to verify from anywhere, has really done nothing of note - Skysmith 11:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have a friend with 5: UK, Eire, European Union, South Africa and Australia. It is not hard to do.--Porturology 13:02, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cape Lookout, North Carolina

Delete North Carolina does not have a Palm County. Furthermore, I would be surprised if the Rambot missed a city of over 30,000 people. There is a geographical feature in North Carolina called Cape Lookout, if someone wants to write an article about it, but this isn't it. Icelight 19:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Cape Lookout for now, until I come up with something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete or at least do the redirect indicated above. BTW - The creator has added a series of fictitous pages on non-existant NFL teams and stadiums, many now speedily deleted. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Do not redirect since this will discourage the creation of a proper article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not too many information --April12 11:26, 27 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 Metronidazole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MetroGel

Delete Product promotion. Icelight 19:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious ad. No need to merge with rosacea since that article already mentions metronidazole; brand names need not be given. Dcarrano 19:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Metronidazole, nothing really to merge. JamesBurns 08:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam! -- FunkyChicken! 05:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Metronidazole--Forig 12:03, 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!) 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Illuminatiary Electric Riot Society Of New York

Delete. Probable utter nonsense; no google for "electric riot society" and no imdb on Arabella Zanzibar. knoodelhed 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax/nonsense. Dcarrano 19:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could be real, I suppose, but no notability established. probably unverifiable. Friday 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense--Forig 12:05, 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 per user consensus agains new user votes. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gian Andrea Scarello

A bit on a non-article, although more complete versions are on the Italian and German wikis. However the artist appears non-notable (Google only give self-authored links) and this may be self promotion. There is a related article at Contemporary Baroque Art which is also dubious, but I've yet to form a view on that one. Delete, or ask the Italian wiki whether they believe he is notable. Solipsist 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Further comment - I'm not convinced that SpeedyDeletion is appropriate. Its not vandalism, its not patent nonsense, and although there is little content, the interwikis to the Italian article shows it has the capacity to expand. The real question is whether he is notable. -- Solipsist 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point, but the .it CBA article used to invalidate the "no content" reasoning reads as a Scarello fan club register. But you're right, it does fall to notability, so I'll change my vote accordingly. --Gunmetal

• Speedy, "very short article providing little or no context." WP:CSD Dcarrano 20:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as expanded. Article does still appear to need some cleanup, however.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 12:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

• Speedy as above, but let the redlinks stand. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 20:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)}

Speedy, like I originally tagged it. -- Gunmetal 20:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Delete NN per Solipsist. --Gunmetal 22:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Mr.Gunmental to change the own opinion, it means not to have idea on the article! Not credible ballot --Peterloud 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't mark out my vote. You've had enough of your own, I think I am due at least one. --Gunmetal 20:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

your ballot is not ' credible, to change continuously is not credible, of it you make one issue of personal pride without having acquaintanceof the argument --Peterloud 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please show me the rule that says I am not free to change my vote to better accord with the rules laid forth in the deletion policy (a policy you would be well served to investigate fully... please stop striking out all my entries.) I have not made this an issue of personal pride, you have. I have only asked you to provide some sort of proof of notability (from multiple independant sources), which you either refuse to or can not do. Questioning MY credibility is not going to serve you well in this discussion. --Gunmetal 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded to show notability. --Etacar11 01:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and Contemporary Baroque Art (a straight translation of the article on it.wiki). On balance, I'm not convinced by either. It may be a neoclassicism for our times, but one artist does not make a movement: it looks like a commercial promotion. On the other hand, who would have thought that Tracey Emin's unmade bed would be high art? --Red King 09:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Verifiable NPOV info can be kept as a stub. There is a hint of commercial promotion, though - so I suspect the claims are neither verifiable nor NPOV. Perhaps someone who reads Italian or German could check on it? Dystopos 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

" Strong- Keep " All the artists cannot be famous as leonardo da vinci ,we must clear what means: to be or not to be famous. All the painters are not famous..... only when they are died. The career of this artist is much rich one of happening This type of art is a movement,It does not take advantage itself of the classicism. [20][21] this art has many fans. [22] etc.... --Yermet 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment None of these linked pages reference Scarello, they are merely isolated usages of the term "contemporary baroque art" (except the last one, which isn't even that). Nothing here indicates a defined art style or lends credibility to the importance of Scarello. Dystopos 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment : Keep We do not have to use only material that we find in Internet.

for knowing to write sure critical comments ,on the artistic disciplines, before we must go to the school....but not of poor journalism...sorry my Friend. As an example, If you want to visit an of this painter, you can go in Quanzhou, in China, One of the more famous Exposure of contemporary art; where to a smaller number of European artists (only much famous and a lot important)can participate . In adding: if the critics of art estimate its paintings,so very expansive (as an example 60000 US Dollar and more!!!) will be a reason... O.K. it is not famous as the statues of my Greece but we must to do attention...not to offend sure personalities.

Friend, I understand you, do not exaggerate, do not write a long article...But the short biography I find it just --Yermet 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (As you might expect, a new user with 5 edits, most in relation to Gian Andrea Scarello. -- Solipsist 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

• • Comment I have not (yet) voted to delete the article, but I have mentioned that I suspect the information is not verifiable. Nothing has been added to this discussion to shed any light on the verifiability of Scarello's standing or importance (which is subtly different than his fame or acclaim). If you have access to resources which would verify the claims, then please share them with us. From what I can tell, not being a reader of German, it seems that if Scarello has any note, it is as a founder of a small Commedia dell'Arte theater company in Mainz, and certainly not as the founder of school or style of art, or as a painter. [23] Dystopos 21:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Very-Strong- Keep If you have doubts that it is also a painter, I invite to you to watch some paintings of he: [24]--Yermet 09:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen those. Evidently he paints, too. And wants a whole lot of money for the paintings. No evidence that his influence or accomplishment as a painter is in any way notable. If you have doubts that he is not a notable painter, I invite you to the same gallery. Dystopos 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that we are not art critics, we are encyclopedia editors. I have yet to see anything from an independant reliable source that validates his inclusion in this encyclopedia. --Gunmetal 13:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Very-Very-Strong- Keep

It is not an argument on the personal pleasure. 

The painting is one free and conceptual art.The painters who make commerce are not important and they do not cost more than 3000 US dollar..., the art is not commerce even if the paintings cost...

I believed that:

Wiki is not an advertising newspaper. Wiki is not a Chat for poor arguments. Wiki is one free encyclopedia. But it does not have to be manipulated... Everyone of we gives its knowledge on specific topics. Without valid scientific goals they do not provoke argument. I it respects your opinion, but me he does not seem reliable. Too much mistaken and with contained not expert. I do not allow myself to write arguments on articles that of which I am not much expert. Even if sure times if these me seem improbable, I do not make comments.... I could be mistaken and write stupid things. For this I understand some various reactions in the argument, it must make much attention... In adding this artist is the much most famous one than other personages who fill up the pages of wiki... I would want to end the argument here (I already I am admonished in order to have too much written ). I want to leave all your common sense and, I hope, to logic of the disciplines of the academic knowledge, etc. ...Thanks and good continuation--Yermet 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment 39 English language Google results on "Gian Andrea Scarello", all of them either from his personal webpage, its various mirrors, or adspace that links back to a mirror. How can we still be arguing about notability? --Gunmetal 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable --Forig 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, and looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Important Italian artist,famous for his paintings about the Italian Theatre. Also in Austria, it will be possible to admire some beautiful works of him.From May to November 2006, in the Castle of in Trauten_fels . Organized from the Landes_museum Joanneum-Graz Peterloud 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, one hour after the last post by Forig. Also looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- ???What you allow to write these stupid things about of me? I am entered from one hour (only), but it is better than you go outside! I am not a sock or puppet! Shame! I am not the Mafia)--Peterloud 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Gunmetal meant no great offense. A sockpuppet is a user account created by someone for the purposes of trying to vote more than once and sway a VFD vote (usually). See WP:SOCK for more info. Someone who creates an account and immediately votes on a VFD is always looked on with a bit of suspicion. --Etacar11 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• • explanation - The term sockpuppet has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and VfD is one of the more battle-tested sites for dealing with the phenomenon. Basically what we are looking for with this vote is a consensus of the Wikipedia community. The WP community is made up of editors that are objectively concerned with the project as a whole. Therefore, in determining a consensus, the comments of people whose concerns extend only to single issues can be justifiably ignored. People who have apparently only registered to enter a vote on VfD can be assumed not to be part of the community yet. The comments of people who do not assume good faith or who engage in personal attacks will also be ignored. Furthermore, these tactics tend to reflect poorly on the possibility of legitimately justifying the article being disputed. It is presumed that strident arguments that have no substance to them indicate that no valid arguments exist, or they would have been brought to bear already. Dystopos 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks of the information to Etacar11 and Dystopos  : but this user (Gunmetal)is not reliable, it changes continuously the idea on the argument,It does not possess valid arguments and it "attacks" the others user.. It is also a newcommer in wikipendia: perhaps the sock... he must to give it to... him --Peterloud 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed my thoughts on this argument. I only agreed, after Solipsist's point, that this is simply a Delete instead of a Speedy Delete. My point remains the same, there is simply not enough third party information available on this individual to claim notability. I'm sorry if you feel that by having this opinion I am personally attacking you; that is not my intent. --Gunmetal 20:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Not problem my friend, dear Gunmetal( and all Wikipedia-Friens), I want to ask You to find a compromise, it is important that this argument supplies a good Wikipedia-example. The opinions are too much various: too much negative or too much positive .What I propose? As an example, with a short article(but not too mutch) Me it seems just to propose a not long article, a compromise for all the opinions...This argument resists from too many days, it is right to allow the administrators to close it, with wisdom and intelligence. Pleasing all we. --Peterloud 12:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Changed to No vote - I just took a whack at correcting the grammar in the recent edits. It was a difficult task and the original text made the subject unclear. Can someone verify that we are talking about an artist? Many references to "it" made me unsure. If the subject is actually a type of art just revert my attempt and start over. - Tεxτurε 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

dear Tεxτurε, please, do You want to control this German article? , perhaps you can translate it:[25] --Peterloud 13:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No one controls an article. I made a first attempt to clean up the syntax. Hopefully, the next person can take it from there. I am not knowledgable about the subject and probably someone else can give it the proper perspective. I hope I have done some good. - Tεxτurε 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC))Dear friend Texture , I believe that You have made a good job, I would make the article little more short--Peterloud 19:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC))

• Comment I know that inclusionists like to include every article no matter what, but many people seem to have a skewed view of artist notability. Its really not sufficient to have just sold a painting or something, for the most part that is a level of notability equivalent to having a job. Cambridge, where I live, is less than half the size of Venice yet has several hundred active artists (you can find a subset here), very few would really merit an encyclopedia article.

Now this weekend I started an article on Afewerk Tekle, Ethiopia's most famous artist - we didn't have anything before, although there was an article on the German wiki. In the process, I came across this list of other Ethiopian artists. Notice how many of them have had solo exhibitions, have exhibited internationally, and have their work in national collections. I doubt we will have articles on any of these artists any time soon, but these are the sort of criteria that should be considered with respect to notability. I'm sure that for most of the artists in that list online verifiability will be difficult, but I'm equally sure that if asked, many of them could point to publications where their work is discussed.

In general, self promotion is one of the required skills of a modern artists. However, if an artist is writing articles about themselves, but isn't able to point to their national and international shows, or their work being discussed in art journals and the like, it is a fair bet that their notability falls well below the professor test. I can't see why Wikipedia should help promote their work over and above the work of the several million similar artists. -- Solipsist 14:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Your doubts are the test of Yours little acquaintance on the argument. They are not only famous,the Africans artists who work in England. Other artists, that You do not know, and that they work in other regions, they come just recognized like "famous". This does not mean, that those that You do not know, they are automatically not famous.I do not believe that someone tries to make "promotion" of if same (!?)(an accusation without reason, my user-search on i.p. number ) . I Believe, that the artists of Cambridge , they are not happy of what You write, Yours opinion are without critical-explanation ... You remove they every hope ....but Your opinion is not new: many other sages,many years ago , it had the doubt on the importance of "Van Gogh".....p.s. perhaps I have time to visit Your article aboute the Africans artists, and to open one new nice discussion)--Peterloud 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem confused. Afewerk Tekle does not live and work in England, although he did go to school there. As it says in the article, apart from a year or two traveling and giving lecture tours, he has spent most of his life living and working in Addis Ababa. -- Solipsist 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

'Comment You have reason, as You can well understand, I do not know the artist, famous (?), of which you write, exactly as You do not know the artist, famous (?), of which I write in this page....perhaps we are confused, both... --Peterloud 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• (Invalid Vote) Keep Yes, personality --April12 11:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • A smarter than average Sock puppet. Got rid of the red name immediately. Here's April12's contributions:

    * 06:41, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (→Keep) (top)

    * 06:28, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gian Andrea Scarello (→Gian Andrea Scarello) (top)

    * 06:26, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cape Lookout, North Carolina (→Cape Lookout, North Carolina) (top)

    * 06:09, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Bennett (manga artist) (→Steve Bennett (manga artist)) (top)

    * 06:01, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George Howeth (→George Howeth) (top)

    * 05:59, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Playstation 4 (→Playstation 4)

    * 05:58, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) User:April12 (top)

    * 05:51, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6 o'clock in the morning (→6 o'clock in the morning) (top)

It would have been more convenient if they had chosen the username July27... -- Solipsist 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My Friend I believe that You have reason Mr.Solipsist . April me seems a not fidabile "month" ....or "girl" --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a familiar voting method.... we've seen that a few times in this particular VfD so far. At least this time he kept the vote text short, so his writing style isn't as identifiable. --Gunmetal 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Definitely a familiar voting method ? You are too much against to the article in discussion . It is "April" parent of your "family voting method" ? It is only my thought, naturally without offense ... but I begin to believe that You are a sock puppetIf it is not true ,what I say, then I excuse with You, Mr.Gunmetal --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to form a quality retort to that, but I've read it 5 or 6 times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you should focus on providing some evidence of notability for Scarello. That is, after all, the only issue of importance here. --Gunmetal 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Last Comment

1. But this is not discussed! If You are not expert , it cannot be discussed. About the "Scarello" there are more information than what You ask , and of what the Vote of Wikipedia demand . I Do not want more to discuss with You.You provoked to an enormous pressure against this article (intellectual violence), To my opinion, Your reliability dont convince me.On Your opinion , there is something of strange, without reason: something that does not have relationship with the article on the Scarello. Like suspicion a Tandem-Voting-job with the User "Solipsist" ("Familiar voting method" ? Or , perhaps, it is a a new mode for convincing :"Vanity-Tandem-Vote voting method" ? )
2. About Notability: In your voting, used too many different measures. As an example: between the article of Scarello and the article on the African artist , that You have written, it appears clearly that: Your African artists,Afewerk Tekle,has very, very, much less of the evidence of notability of Scarello ,that you do not recognize, also against every strongly personality evidence.For this example I do not want more to discuss about your incompetence about this ! If you do not have idea of this Scarello-article, please not tried to deny, with strange comments and without reason, the Voting of the other Users.
3. 'I ask,kindly, that an administrator puts this argument in the archives.
4. After this comment I do not want more to write and to answer to you . Now You can try to convince other Users, Your attempt with me has not had effect. The Voting is democratic and free,like a Your opinion, but now You cannot hide behind the evidence of my affirmations. Getlteman I pray You not to call itself more in cause on this disussion .

In every case, dear "Tandem Company" Thank You for Your denied supporting comment.Please you do not take this like a personal attack, but in this argument it is important to donate tests and not only words. I repeat my Vote it remains: KEEP . Thanks--Peterloud 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I take great offense at the implication that Solipsist and I are involved in some mastermind scheme to destroy this article, I'm going to let it go because it will serve no one to argue with you any further. I hope your experieces on this VfD don't keep you from contributing useful articles in the future. Best of luck. --Gunmetal 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep , cleanup and expand . Notable --Allredy 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(This is this user's first entry --Gunmetal 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Interconnectedness of All Things

Oh dear! People call me deletionist but I let things like this live. Almost speedied but I decided that though it's nonsense, it's not quite patent nonsense. The qualifier can't be superfluous. Original research/ essay/ non-encyclopedic? Cutler 20:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-encyclopedic. --PhilipO 20:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. -EDM 21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 23:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've got a case of deja vu. This reads like the same type of crap User:Mythrandia was creating back in May, I wonder..... --Doc (?) 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• In order to increase that connectedness, Redirect to Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Uncle G 00:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Uncle G. (Also "because there is evidence" makes a really weak explanation.) Peter Grey 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • me too SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Repo Man was my first thought. Plate o' shrimp ~ WCFrancis 01:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Increase the interconnectedness by redirecting to Bullshit. Barno 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

ROFL. Real vote: Delete. I don't see anything of real value ~ WCFrancis 21:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 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!) 12:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applesauce Records

Delete nn vanity page. 4 hits on Google. [26] Icelight 20:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep I have seen them mentioned on other forums. I don't think it was put up for vanity either because if you read their message board, they are surprised about their inclusion (even though they were discussing whether to make one or not).

• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 23:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• (Invalid and unsigned vote) Speedy Keep I am author of this article. Found the page on another forum. It is no different than other famous web groups like Homestar Runner, which is also included.
• Delete - non-notable / vanity - Tεxτurε 20:02, 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!) 12:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Studio elves

Delete non-notable neologism. Returns only 24 hits on Google. [27] Icelight 20:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Speedy Keep Have heard the term used many times on campus radio.

• Delete neologism--nixie 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 05:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable phrase. JamesBurns 08:46, 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 transwiki and delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chido

Delete Slang dic def Icelight 17:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Spanish Wiktionary, where this does not appear. Dcarrano 23:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign slang dicdef. JamesBurns 08:48, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EverQuest game commands

This is hardly encyclopedic. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

• Abstain - I just wanted to note that I'm the poor moron who re-formatted this page. Don't let the formatting fool you, this page was just a raw dump of the output of the /help command in EQ. I see almost no value to this article, but discussion apparently started at Talk:EverQuest#subsites?, which you should probably read before voting (this was intended as a sort of reverse-merge of an unmanagably large article) -Harmil 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
  • Delete - Consider: Would you think a list of UNIX commands would have a place in WikiPedia, especially if such a list did not explain the greater majority of them? -RandomName 7 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
    • Comment - You mean something like this? List of DOS commands I don't see how the EQ list is different. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
    • Comment - Exactly. Thus I'll (probably) be VfDing that one as well. Although this is not always a pertinent exercise, try and imagine what you would use these lists for. If, for example, you were writing a year ten report on everquest (or DOS) what place would a list of commands have in that report? If one of those commands had an intersting or unusual history, that would (perhaps) rate an entry in your report. Both of these lists as they stand do not merit inclusion. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
    • Comment Quick Q upfront. Would it make sense to move the discussion to the original page, so only votes appar here? secondly, in regards to the comment of evolving commands...that actually is the case. remember the /LFG command - only was introduced with the "legacy of Ykesha" expansion. /makeleader? makes more sense since GoD with Leadership points. /invite? can do that serverwide since patch June 29, 2005. These are just the first ones I documented so far.--Kajolus 8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
      • It would make great sense to move the discussion to the discussion page and leave just the votes here. However, in practice that is almost never done! Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
• Delete - (vote changed July 15, due to wikibook being available now). well, first of all sorry for almost simply pasting the raw output from EQ (well, at least I sorted it). I am not much of a Wiki pro, so simply posting the raw data seemed appropriate - as I always consider WIKI a teamwork. I simply wanted to start the page. That the style was simple (mildly put) I know. As Harmil points out (btw, thank you for reformatting!), yes, it started on the discussion page. I am a vivid EQ player, and I am personally missing a list of (evolving and changing - thus Wiki style pages usable) game abbreviations/acronyms/commands. If this is the wrong place, sure, delete it. Although then I don't see the reason for keeping explanations like KEI/SOW etc. on the mainpage. please also check the discussion page though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EverQuest_game_commands), there is at least one more person quite happy with the existence of the page per se. PS. Rome wasn't build in a day either ;) --Kajolus 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • Kajolus: First off, welcome to Wikipedia! I know having a VfD on your contributions can be frustrating, but please don't take it as an insult. VfDs are just one of the many ways that Wikipedia constantly asks the question, "just what is it that we're doing, here". I'll take my other comments to the talk page to avoid cluttering the voting.... -Harmil 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm still trying to figure out a way to keep the page. I can go either way on the criteria for "what wikipedia is not" and while I agree it leans towards that, I dunno ..the list is just such dang good info =/ --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 03:40 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikicities. Dcarrano 00:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki if possible, or delete --nixie 04:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide (or at least not yet; it's on its way). Maybe another wiki wants this, though I can't imagine why they would. -R. fiend 05:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a games guide, as per r.fiend. JamesBurns 08:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• List of DOS commands points the way, but not in the direction that Nahallac Silverwinds thinks. List of DOS commands is a poor article. But note the reference in it to a far more comprehensive Guide to Windows commands Wikibook. Similarly, to echo Aaron Brenneman's point about lists of UNIX commands, there are several Wikibooks that have guides to UNIX commands, in particular the Guide to UNIX commands Wikibook. Wikibooks is where instruction manuals, giving lists of commands and what they do, belong. There are many instruction manuals for games sitting on the Games bookshelf at Wikibooks. I've just begun one more: EverQuest, wherein you will find a chapter on EverQuest/Commands. It should have a ring of familiarity about it. Delete. Uncle G 19:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki - Tεxτurε 20:02, 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!) 12:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evrard de N...?

A nameless non-person, the prior of a non-existent priory? --Wetman 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• That was deep. But yes, a person without a name who supposedly led an organization that turned out not to exist = Delete. Dcarrano 23:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-existence. --Etacar11 01:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no reason for a separate article to exist until and unless this person is identified in which case there might be grounds if it proves that he did anything else interesting. —Phil | Talk 12:28, July 19, 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. jni 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Face changer

Finishing this nom that was never listed. --Dmcdevit·t 20:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Pointless and uninformative. --Sgkay 19:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Tabor 20:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no content - only possible content doesn't belong in its own article - Tεxτurε 20:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Joe D (t) 02:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Put anything useful (anything?) in Big Brother (TV series), then get rid of this... thing... Grutness...wha? 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable sub-stub, almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 08:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:54, 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!) 11:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farmer and Irwin

Advertising for a non-notable company. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Dcarrano 23:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 20:03, 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!) 11:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faschingschwank aus Wien (op. 26) . . . . 1839

See discussion page (almost a speedy delete, I guess). --Missmarple 10:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Duplicate article with no additional information. Martg76 21:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 08:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Forig 12:14, 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. jni 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a smoking pipe from an apple

A how-to, and not an extraordinarily useful one--I'm not sure wikibooks would want this. Delete. Meelar (talk) 20:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not nonsense, but certainly useless, and far from encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 20:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete - I believe this is a rough attempt to recreate content done away with at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Apple bong. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per BD2412--nixie 04:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – Kpalion (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ceci n'est pas un delete. Radiant_>|< 12:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, even for useful techniques which I've utilized when resources were scarce. Barno 14:43, 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. CDC (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExtraLife

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. It's a very valid entry, and the webcomic has a large web presence. Google up Extra Life and this webcomic is the first result. Impressive noting how long this term, taken in a gaming related sense, has been around. Many other web-comics have a presence on Wikipedia at the moment as well. 24.61.90.121 21:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. Does this webcomic not fit the Alternate Proposal listed on this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COMIC AfterSpencer 13:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Archive does go back a while, but Alexa of 470,004 is well below proposed guideline of WP:COMIC. #283 at The Web Comic List. I vote Delete. Dcarrano 23:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of way too many somewhat successful webcomics about gamers and geeks. There is nothing unique in the subject matter or, as far as I can tell in a brief scan, in the execution. Although at least the art for this one is decent. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dcarrano--nixie 04:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 09:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

keep with over 100,000 unique visitors per month and a lage 'industry-insider' fan base, I'd say that it is not "non-notable". Keep it. (Unsigned vote by 128.231.88.4 (talk · contribs))

• Comment The 3 month average for ExtraLife is twice what is listed in the proposed guideline WP:COMIC "If the web comic has a 3-month average traffic above 200,000..." ExtraLife is at 470,004 as of today. AfterSpencer 18:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, it means the opposite: the # represents, not the raw amount of traffic, but the rank relative to other websites (#1 is Yahoo, for instance). So a higher number is worse. Dcarrano 19:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. AfterSpencer 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is confusing. You aren't the first one to get it mixed up. I'm changing the wording of the guideline to read "better than 200,000" so that it is more clear what is meant. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Aranel and Dcarrano. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatman (Villain)

The text appears to relate to an entire tranche of existance otherwise unknown to Wikipaedia. there are no in-links, and no contextual conections to enable anyone to place this within the stream of human wisdom. Besides, it would require a disambiguation and several other pages, to cover all the other villains "known" as Fatman (let alone politicians who have had that epithet attached to them, and who would therefore qualify in most eyes as villains of the deepest dye) 62.25.106.209 13:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• O... kay. Anyway, "Alexei and Friends" (0 Google hits that match description in article) is not notable, therefore its villain isn't either... Delete. Dcarrano 23:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete complete lack of context makes this useless --nixie 04:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:08, 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!) 12:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Federation of the Star

Vanity page for what appears to be a boy's club. No Google verification --Porturology 01:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 23:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. So is the nature of secret organizations. --Etacar11 01:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. -- Emperor Thatdog VI 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:08, 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 Technotronic; little support here for this as a separate article, and a redirect doesn't lose any information, as they key bits are already there. CDC (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felly

This seems non-notable to me. Do we have a name? Is this really all there is to tell? --Wetman 06:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Only TWO valid google hits. One is a blog mentioning her appearance on an album cover, the second is a wikipedia article about that album. Tobycat 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 00:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. "Pump Up the Jam" hit No. 2 on the Billboard magazine Hot 100 in the USA, and was apparently a big hit in the UK a well, and it was credited as "Technotronic featuring Felly." This would normally qualify Felly under WP:MUSIC criterion no. 1 ("a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country") ... the problem is that she didn't actually perform on the single, she was just hired to lip sync in the video. She is certainly verifiable (a Google search for (felly technotronic) yields 797 hits [28]) but doesn't seem to have attained much fame in her actual profession of being a model. I found a biography of her at The Eurodance Encyclopedia but it doesn't add much more information. Still, keep on the grounds that she was credited as a recording artist on a major hit single. --Metropolitan90 02:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Technotronic, appart from her association with that group she is not notable. --nixie 04:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Technotronic, and only because redirects are cheap. Insufficient notability for an article, either as a musician (she performed no music) or as a model. Barno 14:46, 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!) 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fierce Legends Software

Finishing up this old nomination. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 20:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable organization? Oklonia 22:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Kryptops 22:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, software equivalent of fanfic writers, which are normally not notable. Dcarrano 23:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable company. JamesBurns 09:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 20:05, 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!) 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Stage

Finishing an old nom never listed here. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 21:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Final Stage is a generic term. Could include a whole host of things apart from Sonic Hedgehog game. Could include the last month of pregnancy etc! --Sgkay 17:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above, so generic as to be unencyclopedic. Dcarrano 23:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:10, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finepoint

I couldn't find a thing on them on Google. Do these band members have names? :) Ash Lux 6 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

• Delete "The band was formed in late April, early May of 2005." Need any more be said? --Gunmetal 22:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; unverifiable and appears to be a vanity site. Decapod73 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 00:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons stated above. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:11, 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 MERGE and REDIRECT: 5m, 1k, 1d.. Anon IP not related to article discounted. Duly merged and redirected. -Splash 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fire drill regulations in Rhode Island

Delete - Why do we have this page, but not one on fire drill regulations in other states? Unless Rhode Island is special in its ways of conducting fire drills (I doubt so) it should be deleted. (preceding unsigned comment by 205.188.116.69 05:06, June 25, 2005 UTC)

• Merge into fire drill, which may grow to include information on fire drill regulations in many jurisdictions, thus becoming useful for research. At this point, an independent page on Rhode Island is not needed. Martg76 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agree with Martg76. Decapod73 23:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no particular need to merge. Kappa 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Martg76. Dcarrano 00:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge before we end up with 50 nearly identical articles on 'fire drill regulations in {insert name of US state}', then 200+ nearly identical articles on 'fire drill regulations in {insert name of country}', then umpteen thousand nearly identical articles on 'fire drill regulations in {insert name of state/county/oblast/commune/canton/other administrative district type I can't remember off the top of my head}' Niteowlneils 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Fire drill, as per Niteowlneils. JamesBurns 09:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with fire drill. 152.163.100.67 15:12, 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 (no consensus), but possibly move. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ideepthroat

Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Mu.  Grue  21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Fear to google it (and Google test doesn't really work for porn anyway), but... would certainly appear to be non-notable porn site. Delete. Dcarrano 00:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Vizcarra 00:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. 38,400 Google hits. Fairly notable site but I don't know enough about it to cast an informed vote. 23skidoo 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep famous porn site. Redwolf24 09:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Without even looking, I think it's that Heather chick, and she rules. Porn rocks. Proto t c 12:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If kept, this article would be renamed, but for the record: porn is not inherently notable. There are so many internet sites that to be included here the site must really be notable; i.e. above the pack. Is this one? Not as far as I can tell. --Scimitar ^parley 16:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Should create article Heather Harmon. With the website notes listed there. Heather has a large following within the file sharing community. Also the article should be cleaned up.Wynler 21:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Almost a household name if you cross by a college campus.
• Move to Heather Harmon article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 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. CDC (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star wars hutt

Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Delete, non notable, vanity.  Grue  21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Thunderbrand 21:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete worthless. --PhilipO 21:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jabba the Hutt. Redirects are fun and cheap. And have a lovely floral scent. --Scimitar 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vain - Forbsey 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just FYI, Stardestroyer.net is a lot more notable than this, and it's article got deleted. And 200 articles in their databank doesn't compare to Star Wars Wiki's 4,800+. Also, we shouldn't redirect it, because it simply wouldn't make sense. If anyone wanted to know about hutts, they'd search Hutt or Hutts.-LtNOWIS 08:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• It turns out stardestroyer.net didn't get deleted. Still delete, just not a notable enough website.-LtNOWIS 09:46, 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. Postdlf 19:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Love (novella)

Maybe the author wrote this novella, for no google or amazon search reveals any such novella. No author, no plot, and obviously the author of the piece has lost interest in Wikipedia. Judging from what he wrote in the talk page, he doesn't know what Wikipedia's about. There is, however, a very famous First Love under the misleading title First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel). My idea is to shift that entry here. Mandel 21:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete First Love (novella) as unverifiable. The information (what little there is) must be incorrect because there is no information to be found on a novella of that title with that plot and character names. Maybe the title's wrong, maybe something else, who knows, but without any context as to author or publication date, no one can ever really find out what it's supposed to be. Postdlf 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this as unverifiable, and you can do what you like with First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel), although if it is a novel rather than a novella, I'd suggest First Love (novel). Dcarrano 00:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Replace content. I did a rather extensive search to find this and checked online sources to determine if in fact this was referring to the Turgenev novella, but to no avail. I'm interested in moving the aforementioned First Love (Ivan Turgenev Novel) to First Love (novella) to better match current naming guidelines, but was blocked by the existence of this page. Rather than deleting the page, the content could be swapped ... if that would be an acceptable solution, then I could handle the mechanics (would not require any admin powers). My interest in this is from my participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation rather than a personal interest in the novel. Courtland 17:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "swap" the content—merely cutting and pasting to change an article name is frowned upon because it doesn't move the edit history. The only proper thing to do, if the Turgenev article should be at "First Love (novella)", is to delete the unverifiable latter and then move the former to that title. Postdlf 18:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The impact of this depends upon how extensive the edit-history and the perceived importance in preserving it (always important, but less so in some cases). Mind that the history is not destroyed but is accessible as a manual x-reference if the proper edit-commentary is added. Note that I'm not in the habit of doing this often; there are some cases where it can be used without undue negative impact, though. If this is one of the cases where it is felt the impact is not justified, which might be the case, then I'd gladly abide by consensus in the matter and not boldly edit where noone would wish to edit (so to speak). Courtland 19:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Considering how long this VfD has been going on, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the article per consensus, and then you can move the Turgenev one there if you like. Postdlf 19:23, 24 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. jni 11:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AANYL PANE

Vanity page for a band, apparently copied entirely from the band's (impressively obscene) web site. This article should be deleted. Ken 21:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed - MordredKLB 21:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio/band fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 00:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - DavidWBrooks 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Sounds like a poor parody of GWAR. JamesBurns 09:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete biggest load of crap I've ever read to be honest --Stevefarrell 00:55, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep both (fair majority). Garrett^Talk 05:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FlashGet and GetRight

• Delete Appears to be advertisment Refdoc 10:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This is legit software. A little story: I am going to be downloading an extension for Mozilla Firefox that is an autodownloader but you *MUST* have a download manager installed for it to work, and it lists ~15 that are compatible. I came here looking for info on download managers and one that is compatible was FlashGet. What do I see when I get here, people trying to delete the info that I needed, stop it ;). My second comment is that if you look at this article it is not an advertisement, and if it was then delete the parts out that are NPOV that make it an 'advertisement'. It isn't that hard. --ShaunMacPherson 01:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to sound rude, but I'm curious... WHY would you come to an encyclopedia looking for compatible files for ("Gotright", is it?) when that product's own page would clearly say which ones it supports??? Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FlashGet, Weak Keep GetRight, we are NOT Download.com, go there if you want files. This is shareware, and shareware by its nature is a self-proclaiming ad whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not to be a vehicle for indirect ads, nor in any way to be seen as promoting or recommending or influencing the purchase of product(s). Please, delete. Master Thief Garrett 07:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Added GetRight; if FlashGet is to go, then, by that logic, it's only "fair" that GetRight should go too. Despite being a fan of Getright myself, the point is that it is not necessarily encyclopedic. Master Thief Garrett 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FlashGet and Keep GetRight. The latter is well-known software; the former is not. Firebug 07:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, that is also true! Very true. Master Thief Garrett 12:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, or Rewrite both. --minghong 10:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite both. FlashGet is quite well-known - maybe not as much as Getright, but that didn't stop a popular local computer magazine from bringing FlashGet on the accompanying CDs years before they did the same with GetRight. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They are rather well-known. -Hapsiainen 11:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At least with GetRight - it is a respectable program that is very well-known. Go to any site with an unorthodox download system which doesn't work too well with download managers, and GetRight is the first example that they will always quote. Could do with expanding though, I'll take on the task later on if the deletion doesn't get carried out. - Jamyskis 17:09, May 12, 2005 (CET)
• Keep. I definitely know that FlashGet is VERY popular software in Russia, not just yet-another-shareware-downloader. You allow here articles about MS Windows, Opera etc., don't you? That is just the case. --Anthony Ivanoff 15:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how it matters that they're shareware and contain ads (a lot of programs do, e.g. Opera); they're well-used, and popular enough to merit a mention here. The articles' existence are useful even if only in comparison with other download managers, which I think is important information in an online encyclopedia. If necessary, rewrite the articles. --Phoenix-forgotten 04:28, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know all Download Managers, but I knew FlashGet and Getright. While I accept that their inclusion is somewhat weird, an article about Download Managers justifies a list of download managers, and that list justifies both articles. Another Wikipedian 03:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. Notable software. Factitious June 29, 2005 02:08 (UTC)
• Keep both per above. Dcarrano 23:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Getright and a Weak Keep for Flashget, following on from reasons above, and I'd also echo the rewriting requests. In fact, would it perhaps be better for us to merge all these download managers into a single page/list? There doesn't seem to be that much that is remarkable about each of them individually. --StoneColdCrazy 05:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It might. Try adding a {{merge}} tag to them and see what happens. Or just be bold. Regardless this has gone on too long so I'm closing the Vfd. Garrett^Talk 05:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 852

Non-notable advertising. --Laura Scudder | Talk 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable - Forbsey 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school club. Dcarrano 00:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable school club promo. JamesBurns 09:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 20:05, 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. jni 11:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock site

Nonsense. -- RHaworth 21:57, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

• Redirect to shock site. --Scimitar 22:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense --Neigel von Teighen 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a nonsense parody of shock site upon comparison Decapod73 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - surprised there are no sockpuppets defending this one!  ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 23:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke articles aren't for Wikipedia. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 00:14, July 14, 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. CDC (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rex the red , The Bob , Sewer Scourge , Fishlips

All characters in a java-script computer game from a website with a Alexa rating of 300,000+. (And, yes, I tried the game and its pretty crap) --Doc (?) 22:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• (Once again I've got the notation wrong on the individual pages for a multiple nomination - if anyone can fix this - and/or post the correct way on my talk page - I'd be much obliged --Doc (?) 22:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
  • Fixed. :-) Oh, and delete all. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I am rather fascinated by the character called "Fishlips", reminds me of a date I had once... -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Beats dating "Sewer Scourge". Delete, characters from non-notable game. Dcarrano 00:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all characters from non-notable animation--nixie 04:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable gamescruft. JamesBurns 09:22, 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 keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well... I was going to close it myself, but it's cool. Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic Matthew

The previous VFD on this article was effectively sabotaged multiple (in some cases self-admitted) sockpuppetry, and was closed as "inconclusive" - i.e. it was not possible for the closing admin to determine what the votes actually were (as opposed to "no consensus").

Due to the sockpuppetry etc. involved previously, if you have under 200 edits prior to the re-opening of this VFD (which was at 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) your vote is likely to be discounted (particularly if you sign as another user, and make comments as if you were the other user rather than yourself).

• The previous VFD, for anyone interested, is here.

[edit] Manner vote conducted

It is divided up by Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. This is to make it easier to administer. Given the ridiculous situation we had last time, Ta bu shi da yu has imposed order on this vote!

Please keep comments short, and only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page. You can always link to the discussion from your comment. Any rebuttal should go in your comment(s) and be kept brief - if you wish to give more extensive reasoning, do so on the talk page or elsewhere and link to it. If you don't wish to vote, but wish to make a comment, please leave it in this section.

Ta bu shi da yu will administer the vote to deal with sockpuppetry etc. I will administer the vote. He will look at each accusation of sock-puppetry individually, and on their own merits.

Comment from TBSDY: I suggest that if new users want to have their vote count that they give a decently explained reason why it should be deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Garrett: I numbered the votes for easier counting, hope you don't mind. Garrett^Talk 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I appreciate the gesture, but I'll be checking each vote one by one... not all votes will necessarily be counted (though they might possibly). We'll leave it numbered, but it might not reflect the final figure... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for VFD

This article is basically original research.

• It relies on assuming that Jerome's statement about a "Gospel of the Hebrews" was accurate
• It is an almost universal opinion amongst academics and non-academics that Jerome's statement was an (innocent) error caused by lack of information, and that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" that he refers to were in fact 3 seperate texts -
  • The Gospel of the Hebrews
  • The Gospel of the Nazarenes
  • The Gospel of the Ebionites
• It contains an opinion of why people might have wanted the Gospel of Matthew to exist
• It presents an extremely POV view of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, which is totally inconsistent with either the conservative religious view of their origin, or the critical academic view involving
  • Markan priority
  • Q document
  • Two source hypothesis
  • The relevant section on the origin of matthew at Gospel of Matthew
• It bases all of this on a totally non-sequitur argument that as Eusebius said that "matthew wrote in hebrew letters", there is an entirely different gospel for the hebrews which is not dependant on Mark, and forms the basis of Matthew, and that this must therefore mean that the above 3 gospels (Hebrews/Nazarenes/Ebionites) are in fact 1 gospel not 3 despite the near unanimous opinion amongst academics and non academics to the contrary.
• The origin of the Gospel of Matthew should be, and is already, discussed at Gospel of Matthew
• None of the references actually support the argument of the text but instead either adhere to the standard critical academic view, or propose an entirely different argument altogether.
• The article is even written as an essay/thesis, with introduction and conclusion.
• The author of the article added detail to all articles relating to this area of the bible supporting the POV of the article. The only people setting up links to the article or even mentions of its thesis are 202.176.97.230 and the article's author themselves, and they may very well be one and the same.

• The earlier version of the article had extensive duplication of source texts which are already on Wikisource - [29] - when this was removed, it was restored by editors with very few edits indeed.

• The author of the article has gone to extensive lengths, including RFAR (failed), to preserve it, and there have been many sockpuppets (many of which were admitted to be so - [30]).

• The article has been reviewed by an editor (not me) who has a doctorate (PhD) in the study of the New Testament, and been said to be unsalvagable original research by that editor.

• Even the article's title is POV

[edit] Keep