Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 19

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MrRat

Was listed for speedy but dosen't meet criteria. A developer of various Amazon.com related scripts. NSR (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Check out the talk page and you'll notice it has all 'Don't delete' votes. Before any stupid wikipedia freak puts a page on the 'Votes for deletion' page, maybe they should do some homework about the article. Amazon.com has even mentioned MrRat in press releases about there web services. Anonymous
  • this comment actually by anonymous user User:67.42.194.208, who created the MrRat article and later vandalized the VfD notice on it --Stormie 03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • WHAT!!! All I did was add one word to correct it!!! You can take that stupid notice off now. Thank you! Anonymous (Yes, THAT Anonymous user.) — (Improperly signed comment actually by 67.42.194.208; user's 6th edit.)
      • You guys link to him at Internet phenomenon. Don't you want a page about the Internet phenomenon? I didn't think So, yah, I know, Wikipedia sucks. Real signiture my ***. Anonymous (Yes, THAT Anonymous user.) Make that the 7th edit.
        • Please stop signing your edits as User:Anonymous. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is mostly unsubstantiated claims and speculation, but if this guy's software is truly as notable and important as his anonymous fans say it is, then surely one of them can provide us with a source or three. Changing vote to regular ol' delete given sock/meatpuppet activity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Android79. drini ☎ 03:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• As requested: Amazon's listing of Scripts for 'associates' Amazon don't make these links easy - I think I have correctly stripped out the SessionID - Amazon Products Feed second on the list under Associate Tools - Many of the authors of competing scripts write books, give interviews, etc - MrRat is generally absent from such activities - thus adding to the 'Who is MrRat' phenomena. Perhaps the article (and the Wikipedia) would have been better served had the article initially been created as a stub - it is certainly light on content and on substance, but then stubs are.
• Delete as vanity, self-promotion, original research. Whatever. If someone wants to write an article about the real person behind it, may be encyclopedic. DavidH 05:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Since I'm a "stranger", I'd first of all better say that I have no connection with Mr. Rat, know almost nothing about him, and have no reason for bias, although I do use one of his free scripts.
• Strong Keep I firmly feel that the 2 current entries for Mr. Rat should be kept. A search of either the General Amazon Associates Discussion Board or the Amazon Associates AWS Discussion Board shows that his scripts are an overwelmingly important contributor to the success of the Amazon AWS project, and thus are an extremely important example of the practical use of XML and remote feeds. As long as there are entries relating to XML, remote feeds, or the Amazon E-Commerce Service, the articles on Mr. Rat are also a major contribution to Wikipedia.
  • sole edit by anonymous User:62.0.112.191 --Stormie 08:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm the anonymous user who was apparently 62.0.112.191 a few hours ago. (I don't quite understand that, but it's not relevant here. Maybe my router mysteriously rebooted and reconnected without my noticing, though I don't see how.) Will I seem more respectable if I sign up for an identity? I doubt that I'll be writing on Wikipedia much. And if I do sign up, is there a way to aim my new-found respectability retroactively to this thread? Thanks. David.
    • Signing up for a username solely to vote in this discussion won't get you much of anywhere. Votes from usernames registered after the beginning of the discussion are routinely discounted, as are votes from anonymous or registered users with very few edits (which applies to most of the keep votes here, I'm afraid). This is to prevent the occurrence of sockpuppetry. As for your IP, it's certainly possible you got reassigned a new IP between your first and second comments; see Dynamic IP if you aren't familiar with this aspect of the Internet. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete beacuse, as written, it has way too much marketing. If it was rewritten as a real article, and not a promotional advertisement, then it may have a chance. And yes, I *use* mrrat's scripts. Eclipsed
• Delete, vanity, nn, low quality, uninformative, ... Pavel Vozenilek 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see how it is possible to have an article about someone who is famous for his work without talking about his work! I have posted a request on the articles discussion page explaining the dilemna and asking Wikipedians for suggestions in how to move this forward. One or two of you have commented that there may be the basis of an encyclopedic article in there. Any constructive suggestions for how to move this forward - or comments on my earlier suggestion of marking the article as a stub, which is after all a marker for articles that need bulking out with more content - Dean Marshall.
  • edit by anonymous User:81.86.230.44, whose contributions have all been to the MrRat article and this VFD discussion --Stormie 08:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the software were notable, he would not be. Dcarrano 13:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified, developer doesn't inherit the notability of the software he works on (not that amazon.com's software is notable anyway). Wile E. Heresiarch 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. PERIOD. JEALOUSY = DELETE. MR.RAT MUST STAY. FEAR NOT OPEN SOURCE! AGREE WITH PREVIOUS COMMENT: Seems like sour grapes from the competition to me and if allowed to be deleted for such a reason it brings the viablity of Wikipedia itself into question. — (Unsigned comment by 61.149.10.136; user's 1st edit.)
• Keep, MrRat is a well known figure among many Amazon Developers and the users of there Affiliate system. Without him, I personally could not have started my career in XML web apps as easy as I have. His forums are a great help to many and his software, even though he is "mysterious", is well known. I suggest we keep this and add more to it as we can to help others see a pillar of how to make money with open source. Open source is the future and MrRat is helping many of us realize that future with no selfishness on his part. His support is free, his script is free, and his forums are free. I personally have donated money to his project as a thank you but its not a requirement to use his script. This is my first post to Wikipedia and hopefully not my last, but please do not let my newness discount my comments towards this very generous and helpful person. Thank you. -SilentJoe User:SilentJoe
  • Re: Newness. Our votes are worthless. From a post above....'Votes from usernames registered after the beginning of the discussion are routinely discounted.' 67.42.194.208 - AKA Anonymous.

• Delete this fanboy/resume/vanity cruft. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Just like to point people to the article's discussion page for substantiation of the widespread adoption of MrRat's software from O'Reilly Media - ranked top 25 by downloads AND user rating - (every other software title in their top25 and their respective authors have articles in Wikipedia)- Dean Marshall (my last word on the subject).

[edit] Votes copied from talk page; please add new votes above this section

• Hello, only a small comment from my site, sorry for my bad english, my native language is german. MrRat wrote the first open source application for Amazon Webservices AWS. His amazon products feed (APF) is one of the most suggested software from Amazon.com and in my opinion the most used Amazon software worldwide. (Most used affiliate software worldwide...) It is open source so everyone can use it without profit for MrRat and thats the best on it, because he coded this script for tousands of affiliates and websites in the world who earn money whith it every day. For me this script was the start in the world of webservices and XML and I'm sure without it webservices, Amazon usage of XML wo't be what it is today. Regards from Germany Frank — (Unsigned comment by 194.138.39.52; user's 37th edit. Contribution history suggests this is an IP shared by many editors.)
• KEEP the Mr. Rat Entry in Wikipedia. Mr. Rat's script is the most widely used of the Amazon API scripts. It has literally HUNDREDS of hacks and mods written for it and posted on the web, and probably THOUSANDS including those which are proprietary. The product is an open source script used by THOUSANDS of users on TENS-of-THOUSANDS of websites, and with a built-in ability to load and run special mods. Mr. Rat is nothing short of a PHENOMENON in the world of API scripting for automated web page creation, and his scripts work on the world's largest and most widely-distributed API - the Amazon.com API. Deleting Mr. Rat from the Wikipedia would show an extraordinary IGNORANCE of what is happening in the world of API scripting - a massive and growing phenomenon with THOUSANDS of users and TENS of THOUSANDS of websites. Come on Wikipedia, what's going on? Does the category manager really not know of Mr. Rat? Let's get with the program here. KEEP Mr. Rat entry. Do NOT delete it. Kent Nelson http://www.hostingdude.com — (Unsigned comment by 68.202.167.253; user's 1st edit.)
• Ditto everything in the above posting from HostingDude.com KEEP Mr. Rat. Mr. Rat's script is the finest and most widely used on the Amazon API. I run hundreds of websites using it. DO NOT delete the Mr. Rat Entry. Ana Malave, Owner http://www.anabooks.com — (Duplicate vote by 68.202.167.253; user's 2nd edit.)
• STRONG DISAGREE - As an avid and long time user of MrRat's scripts, I don't see what the hub bub is about here. He is an established author of widely used programs. I can't believe it was even considered for deletion. Seems like sour grapes from the competition to me and if allowed to be deleted for such a reason it brings the viablity of Wikipedia itself into question. — (Unsigned comment by Piwacket; user's 1st and only edit so far.)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukdnet

Non notable site/network. Every Google hit I've checked refered to UK Digital Networks' site at www.ukdnet.co.uk. But this is not it. Nabla 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, unverifiable, as Nabla says the Google hits don't match. Also, UKDNET "Direct connect" returns 0 Googles. I reckon it's just those two guys (Phatty and Daredevil) named in the article who have big aspirations but aren't quite there yet. -Splash 01:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide or ICANN. Geogre 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 13:38, July 20, 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 (14 delete, 6 keep, 1 new user, and 2 votes by anons) --Allen3 ^talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hopkin green frog

Little evidence that this "internet phenomenon" was anything of the sort; it was just a blogger in-joke. ~6000 google hits, yes, but that's very little for a "phenomenon" that has absolutely no existence outside of a bunch of blogs. CDC (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete amusing thing that never made it out of the blogs. The google hits go blogblogforumblogblogblogblogforum etc. -Splash 01:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Thunderbrand 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - a bunch of junk.--GrandCru 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even though I edited and expanded this awhile back, oddly enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* yes but an in joke among bloggers means that alot of people are in on it, also some very large popular blogs such as Boing Boing have covered the story already, and a google search for "hopkin green frog" turns up 9,860 hits JCS 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why does it have to have "made it out of blogs"? It was clearly "noted" so it's "notable" enough for us to note that it was noted. Grace Note 04:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Internet phenomenon. Wikipedia importance policy: "there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." The fact that this (like most) memes was spread through blogs and forums is irrelevant.-- Norvy (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN, and since when is Wikipedia:Importance policy? Radiant_>|< 12:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • D'oh! Since never. -- Norvy (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable net phenomenon. Dcarrano 13:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, its 15 minutes are over. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, under the condition of cleanup. // Gargaj 18:45, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Binadot 02:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Here we go again. A few people on the internet make something about nothing and then think it was important. Indrian 19:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irredemiably non-notable. An infinitely more encyclopedic subject would be an investigation of why anyone would want to keep this pointless article. Quale 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very popular and widley known GSwarthout 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) — (Improperly signed comment actually by 63.164.233.127; user's 1st edit.)
• Keep. For a AYB-sized listing of people helping him "found his frog," visit http://lostfrog.org . And that AYB-size makes it notable. Almafeta 03:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If I looking for article, it name be "Hopkin green frog." Someone deleted my article. I'll find my article. Who deleted my article!? Kuralyov 04:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't say I understand WP's deletion policy; on one hand, this AYB-scale phenomenon, which has given rise to various still-used catchphrases and cultural references online, is suggested for deletion, while on the other hand obvious vanity pages like Scott Fisher (who?) remain untouched. Jmason 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote is Jmason's ninth edit --Allen3 ^talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • It's because no-one has gotten around to nominating Scott Fisher for deletion yet. Feel free to, however! -Splash 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Where else can I learn where this stuff comes from if the internet's primary authoritive source for such things doesn't keep track of it? Ren Hoek 16:50, 2 August 2005 (CET)

Vote actually cast by 213.84.79.181 --Allen3 ^talk 02:31, August 3, 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 02:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Green

Moved here from Speedy, but does not meet criteria for a Speedy delete. I'm not voting Manning 01:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient notability. Pburka 01:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Another "a writer for" magazines that employ freelancers liberally. Now a newsletter pusher. Ok. What is distinctive, unique, important, influential here? Just another writer. Geogre 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Geogre. --Vizcarra 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was in Amiga Power and other magazines too! Plus, he's an alien! (Or at least, that's what they claim. I've never met him.) — JIP | Talk 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• As much as it pains me to say it, Delete. AP had hundreds of writers, barely any of which will ever be notable enough for inclusion here. He wasn't even a particularly memorable or notable writer for the magazine compared to people like Stuart Campbell, Jonathan Davies or Jonathan Nash. --Stevefarrell 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Dcarrano 13:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/promo, nobody in particular. Agreed 100% w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and well-known in British tech circles. The article could do with some fleshing out but by its by no means vanity. Dave Green writes NTK, which is a notable UK technology publication and co-author Danny O'Brien was deemed notable enough for inclusion. Qwghlm 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Danny O'Brien's case is different. He writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times, not sporadic freelance writing for two magazine that no longer exitst. --Vizcarra 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 19:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• keep: Dave Green is one of the most notable commentators on tech events in the UK. He has his finger on the pulse of things, always has something funny witty and acerbic to say. A compelling journalist. Voting to delete him would be like saying 'delete Hunter S Thompson: he only wrote about Hells Angels once back in the '60's'. So yanks dont know who the f**k Dave Green is: everyone else does. he is as much a feature of contemporary Internet journalism as Cory Doctorow etc. (unsigned by 81.2.112.241, just 1 contribution, this vote)
• keep. Very notable. A fixture in UK Internet journalism (unsigned by Geeklawyer, only 3 contributions, 2 on article Dave Green, 1 here)
• Keep. Undoutably notable in UK Internet field. Been around for years. NTK, NotCon, xcom, Open Tech, etc, etc. 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (User:AlanFord)

• Keep. Recycle when we run out of paper. Paul Beardsell 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately server space cannot be recycled. (unsigned by Vizcarra)

Of course it can! But see this. Paul Beardsell 23:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

True, there is no limit on the size of an article or number of topics because we're not limited to physical constraints of paper encyclopedias. However, servers cost money. And everytime you get an error message because the servers are overloaded it should remind you that non-encyclopedic topics shouldn't be on here. There is no "recyclable list" so the best thing is to delete articles that shouldn't take up space. I don't know if Dave Green is notable, it may be notable in his community, but the article doesn't explain how. Writing freelance to magazines that have disappeared and being on committees to organize conferences and being friends with Danny O'Brien does not implay notability. He does seem to have fans or friends who have voted with no previous record of contributing with wikipedia. Is that why he should have an article? --Vizcarra 00:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree but if I did then I would point out this VfD is longer than the article you want deleted. Your comments alone are longer than the article you want to delete. So next time you get a server overloaded message... Paul Beardsell 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

However, keeping this article would justify the inclusion of every freelance writer (how many are they? tens of thousands?) Every owner of a website (millions like his "snackfood" site) and other hundreds of thousands of people that helpt put together (the thousands of) conferences around the world, thus requiring much more server space than many times the size of this VfD article. So, hopefully my remarks will not go in vain and save server space in the long run. --Vizcarra 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep, UK internet celeb. Edward 19:04:58, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
• Delete, Not notable enough. Additionally, the claims citing NTK are void in my opinion, since it was in fact Danny O'Brien that did the lion's share of it, as witnessed by the recent lack of content. Daniel Smith 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, (can I vote for myself?) To be honest, the page doesn't really make me out to be particularly notable - if it makes any difference, I've edited it so it sounds less like I was "just a freelancer" but in fact a valuable and influential member of staff (!). But ultimately, I suspect it comes down to whether you consider NTK sufficiently notable or not, even if - apparently - Danny does "the lion's share" :) Dave Green 11:17, 27 July 2005 (BST) (User:81.136.233.18)

You can vote, but the vote won't count because you don't have enough contributions to the wikipedia (there's a determined number of edits necessary before being able to vote). It's easier to argue NTK to be notable, but harder to argue you to be notable. You are not exactly a celebrity outside of the UK (as far as I am aware). And those in the UK haven't provided much information in the article to justify you to be notable (other than saying that "yanks don't know who the f**k Dave Green is).

Even if David Green is unknown outside the UK that has never been a criterion for inclusion/exclusion. Many Wikipedians are in the UK and they need an encyclopaedia too! And there are countless articles on those unknown outside the USA but we are not using that argument to delete those articles. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, however it has to be clear why he's famous in the UK and the article is not doing that great of a job. Organizing OpenTech: "an informal, low cost, one-day conference about technologies", writing a newsletter, having written (freelance) for two extinct magazines is not newsworthy. --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No offense, you seem like a great guy and you seem to have had many accomplishments, but so have I and I certainly wouldn't write an article about myself. --Vizcarra 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, if that is so please do write an article about yourself. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be vain on me. I prefer to write about other people :) --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Both NTK and OpenTech are core parts of the UK tech community, and including one of the key people in both addresses, in part, the US-centric nature of Wikipedia tech bios. ianbetteridge 14:49, 01 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure I should get a vote, but Dave has actually written the majority of NTK for all of its history. I've mostly concentrated on the New and Tracking sections. --Dannyobrien 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Commment: How ironic that this page justifies having an article about David, much better than the article itself. Somebody cares to expand the article? --Vizcarra 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There's this article that explains inclusion of biographies Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies

• Keep. I just looked up Dave Green to find out who he was, and what else he had done. Jeremymiles 19:13, 2 August 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; attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chamanlal Kamani

Removed from Speedy as fails to fit criteria. Possibly meritorious article. Might be too obscure to develop properly though. Manning 01:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, this is a barely disguised attack page, which does fit the criteria. -Splash 01:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 08:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy- attack page. I'm retagging it as such. --Scimitar ^parley 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED for having little or no context. Postdlf 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RBK(Gang)

No indication of notability. Also appears to be a badly formed article name (no space before paren). Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy megashort article with little or no context. -Splash 01:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as above, or just plain delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lonely Sidewalk

Delete I'm gonna go out on a limb and call nn vanity on this livejournal author. TheMidnighters 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Haha if you think it's vanity you should check out the journal. Anyone who takes that thing seriously needs to get their head checked. Anonymous 2:09, 19 July 2005

Previous vote was by creator of The Lonely Sidewalk User:24.53.122.133. --TheMidnighters 02:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable. This is why saying "vanity" gets us in trouble sometimes. Sirmob 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. DavidH 05:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable author. JamesBurns 08:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some kid's blog. We had a rash of "hes so gay" and "hes so kewel" speedies from the same high school not long ago. Geogre 16:40, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wickerpedia

A parody known to the Wikipedia community but otherwise unheard of. Move from main space to a Wikipedia internal page, perhaps, a new section for parodies of the project lots of issues | leave me a message 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN or Delete. I'm stressing the B in BJAODN here – more groan-inducing than anything. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL

02:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Parodies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. Shouldn't go to BJAODN because it's a real site. In fact, it gets LOTS of Google hits. Let's have a sense of humour here. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (or whatever the hell the saying is) CanadianCaesar 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 125 unique Google hits. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then what does the 12,000 mean? CanadianCaesar 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • No, he did not. At the bottom, it clearly says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 128 already displayed.
      • If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Android is showing 125 unique hits, the rest is probably mirrors (like what they do to us). So the 12,000 websites is showing 12,000 websites that even mention the word Wickerpedia in them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that you can't go any further in the search results... there are only 128 unique hits for that search term. The rest are just duplicates. In addition, the site has an Alexa ranking of 468,100 and has been around for less than a month. If this were a parody of anything other than Wikipedia, there wouldn't be any question. (Can we stop edit-conflicting now? Please? :-)) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds like a good idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
          • By edit conflicting, if assuming you mean changing my reply, sorry, I didn't think anyone had seen it yet, and I had gone back to take another look at the Google hits. CanadianCaesar 04:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Noted in numerous publications, including many influential blogs. Recent example:

Lennon, Sheila. "Personal Technology." Providence (R.I.) Journal, 30 June 2005 [1]:

Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki. Wickerpedia is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.

In fact, I need to go put this article in Wikipedia:Press coverage when I have time. Jokestress 04:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete More appropriate for Uncyclopedia. Maybe a redirect? Hamster Sandwich 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, less than a month old, not notable with only 133 "non-similar" google hits. Thue | talk 12:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN internet meme. We don't need to be narcissistic and self-referential. --Scimitar ^parley 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The Weekly Ha-Ha; ephemera with little traffic, less importance, and no staying power. Geogre 16:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Call me an inclusionist, but I see no real point in deleting this. Yes, it will generally only have an appeal for wikipidia users... but who else uses wikipedia??? Themindset 18:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 22:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - too new to be notable. Come back in 6 months. Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep --MicroFeet 02:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with Themindset (And while we're at it, hasn't anyone thought to make a Wiccapedia?) - Eric 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web site. Dcarrano 13:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable web site. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Binadot 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable website. Indrian 20:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Since it looks like this is a slam-dunk VfD, I have created a Wikipedia:Parodies page and mentioned it there. I imagine we will see many more of these over the years. Jokestress 08:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, should not be mentioned in the main namespace (except maybe in Wikipedia) as it is only relevant with respect to Wikipedia. --SPUI (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. The joke is too small and weak to go anywhere. FatherGuidoSarducci 05:15, 31 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon review, the result of the debate was clearly Delete with many requesting transwiki. Transwiki has been performed and article is deleted. - Tεxτurε 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Savoir-faire

This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Can it be moved over? I proposed this by tagging the article as such, but this was reverted without comment by the page's creator, and I thought I should ask the broader community. -- Beland 03:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki and Delete. Someone is welcome to create a Guide to Roughing It or How to Rebuild Civilization After George Bush is Done With It Wikibook. WP:WIN a how-to guide. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki [to Wikibooks] and Delete. Brilliant concept, but not here. Should make a fine Wikibook though. :) Garrett^Talk 22:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting portal. What harm is it actually doing? Grace Note 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • None, but we are supposed to "stick to our guns" as far as upholding our established rules are concerned, even if, as you say, there's no harm in it. We can't go making exceptions or they might set a precedent. Garrett^Talk 12:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Please note the existence of both Wikibooks:Transwiki:Savoir-faire and Wikibooks:how-tos bookshelf. Uncle G 11:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant with Wikibooks. Radiant_>|< 12:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant!. Dcarrano 13:46, July 20, 2005
• Delete. Binadot 02:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Both The discriptive element (ie, what saive-faire is) should be kept, and the instuctional (how to) elements should be moved to Wikibooks. 203.79.121.31 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC).
• Don't know what to do This does not really belog on Wikibooks at all. This isn't a textbook at all, and is the sort of thing that at Wikibooks we are trying to get rid of ourselves (I primarily hang out at Wikibooks). Yes, there are "How to" books at Wikibooks, but I don't want to see Wikibooks be the dumping ground for unwanted content from Wikipedia. In short, if you want to delete it, kill it outright, and don't transwiki. If they want to create a new project, ask for advise on meta at Proposals for new projects --Robert Horning 08:38, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Madrid

Vanity. Not sure why this article's history indicates that I created this page. I certainly didn't.... PhilipO 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Hamster Sandwich 04:53, 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 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 merge. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous (talk) 13:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Sparkle

Minor character that appeared in one episode and made a cameo appearance in another. Most of the article is the transcription of the part where he is actually seen, and I don't think anything more than one or two sentences can be said about this. --Conti|✉ 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Simpsons precedent. Dcarrano 13:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I suggest taking out the transcript on the basis of copyright. Otherwise harmless. Peter Grey 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with some other Simpsons article and delete transcript (highly possible copyvio) Renata3 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to In Marge We Trust, the only episode in which Mr. Sparkle plays a major role. He also appears in Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo, but just as a cameo. Binadot 02:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only because the transcript is a copyvio. When the In Marge We Trust article is covered, we'll get a fuller description. Almafeta 03:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to In Marge We Trust, as it does seem to be mostly a description of that episode. Crovax 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's not just known for In Marge We Trust. Look at the Engrish article: he's "a well-known parody of Engrish." As mentioned, he was also in Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. Failing this, Merge somewhere. CanadianCaesar 23:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a stereotype about Japan, but in pog-form! I mean... as an independent character. Plus, it appeared twice in the series.--Baka toroi 03:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with In Marge We Trust. Not a noteworthy character by anybody outside the strong Simpsons fanbase, and the article is basically a Copywrite Vio and a description of the episode- it doesn't need its own article, the only reason he's "noted as a well known Engrish parody" is because a Simpson fan wrote that he was, I wouldn't say anybody I met in the street would describe him that way. --195.92.168.165 01:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with In Marge We Trust. About that "Engrish" quote, I actually deleted it because it doesn't have anything to do with Engrish at all. Engrish is mangled ENGLISH in Japan. Mr. Sparkle's packaging is completely in Japanese. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitney High School, Cerritos, California

nn High School - vanity PhilipO 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Like usual, merge with Cerritos, California in order to satisfy our friends the inclusionists ;) [not that I'm a deletionist though]. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree is Postdif. Article has been expanded to warrant a keep, provided it's linked to properly. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Postdlf 05:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article expanded enough to justify independent article. Postdlf 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as no influence outside the school's geographical area. Average Earthman 07:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely expand and keep. Whitney High's claim to being a Wikipedia topic in its own right does not rest exclusively or decisively on its being a highly rated magnet school in California's public education system. It is also the subject of a widely reviewed volume, School of Dreams, written by the Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Edward Humes [2], [3], [4]. Humes uses this book-length case study of Whitney High to bring to national attention the pressures endured by the students of America's selective schools as they strive to give their families nachas through their academic and future professional accomplishments, and interrogates the "wisdom" of educating children in such a hectic learning environment.--Defrosted 07:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Ilyanep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge sounds good. Radiant_>|< 09:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone! Jeez - take another look at the article! Sure it looked kinda useless and stubby to begin with, but I had barely gotton started on it! Check it out now, and reconsider. (Calm down, you overzealous deletionists!  : ) Eric 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good work, Eric. -- Visviva 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think, but strip out all the random bolding of insignificant bits of text. It's very distracting. David | Talk 15:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for once a notable school. Proto t c 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, continue to expand. --BaronLarf 15:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: No indication that this place has any individual character that sets it apart from largely identical institutions performing identical actions. It's a box of kids and teachers. Geogre 16:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the subject of a book by a Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward Humes makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on keeping high schools. — RJH 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep informative, interesting, notable. Themindset 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep being the subject of "School of Dreams" is notable by itself Salsb 21:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per the nice reasoning given by Geogre. --Idont Havaname 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep' please we really shouldnt have to do this all the time really 23:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nice article, thank you Eric. Kappa 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all boxes of kids and teachers. Grace Note 04:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 05:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. School VfD debates will end when the unencylopedic stubs stop being posted or when a school cleanup tag actually has some impact. Vegaswikian 06:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems like a decent article. -- Lochaber 13:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is the super-smart high school. One of the best in L.A. County fpo 22:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Kiwi. The usual arguments. --Carnildo 03:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are worthy of inclusion, please stop nominating them Klonimus 06:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flavius Adrian BUTA

Seems like vanity to me PhilipO 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should be speedy. Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alianism

Google searches for "Alianism" etc. yield no related results. Additionally, user on this IP has a record of vandalism. Almost certainly, the subject is fake. M412k 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, nonsense. I speedied it at least twice tonight already, but since it's on VfD now, we can go through the full process. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As above. Themindset 06:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete when the first google hit is this page...definitely nn/hoax. --Etacar11 23:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cookiecaper 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Well I'd just like to say that I personally know a sect of Alianists and that the religion is not a hoax. I don't who added the article to Wikipedia because Alianism doesnt promote use of technology and therefore I doubt that it was a practicing member who posted it. However, most of the information in the article is correct according to my source and she finds the idea of you dismissing her religion as a hoax hurtful and deeply discriminatory. Alianist members are also in the process of setting up a website she tells me so the point about there being no search results on google is totally moot. I have to say it sends a very bad message, image wise, about Wikipedia that it is willing to delete the first publication about a new religion for absolutely no reason. And to the person who was talking about the IP address you'll probably realise that this has the same address. This is because I am on a computer at Sydney Girls High School in Sydney. This does not, however, make me a student, nor does it make up opinions invalid. (Unsigned comment by Hesfb (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
• I think this open patronising of such a worthwhile religion is horrible. i am a converted full believer of Alianism. My husband converted me in order for us to be married in a traditional Alian ceremony. I am slightly unorthodox in the fact that I use computers and do believe in technology, but i find it terribley offensive that my deep spiritual belief would be questioned in this way. (Unsigned comment by Hannah g (talk · contribs), user's first edit)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Program

Simple nn link PhilipO 04:22, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exposure2k

Practically empty page PhilipO 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I placed a Speedy Delete tag on it, since all it says is abc. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicked Pictures

Almost empty article PhilipO 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy since all it says is Porn Pic. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, this is the name of one of the porn studios, so it would be better recreated properly and protected than any of the countless articles on the countless women who have performed in these largely interchangeable "films." That said, I have no interest in recreation of the article, as its title does act as an invitation to feebs to add their own examples of pictures they consider wicked. Geogre 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoonboyandthepotentials

Vanity band page Hansonc 04:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --PhilipO 04:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto.--Madchester 04:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar1123:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 21:14, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We're shitting ourselves

Delete Non notable web forum advertising. drini ☎ 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see any forum advertising. The article is as valid as the article on the website it is parodying. Messy 05:57, 19 July 2005 (EST)
• keep. Perfectly notable response to the bombings. There may well be a whole bunch of wiki pages discussing the media response to the bombings, and a parody site is a notable part of that response. If a wiki page for the "we're not afraid" website appears, possibly merge with that. If not, leave this page in. I learned something reading it. Robinh 07:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, add as footnote to bombing mainpage. Radiant_>|< 09:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, totally agree with Robinh jamesgibbon 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Note all the role accounts taking part. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and this has no significance, no traffic, no meaning. If you have dirty breeches, I'm sorry, but this article is wholly inappropriate. The site is less than 10 days old, and already the troll voters want to insist that it's perfectly appropriate to have it in an encyclopedia. Geogre 16:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and perhaps mention on 7 July 2005 London bombings per Radiant. This doesn't look like the kind of site that will remain notable. Flowerparty 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this shit.  Grue  21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Carnildo 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Parody sites have no long-term meaning and it is clearly NN MicahMN | Talk 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of topical websites on here. Why should an anti-war message be any less valid than anything else? There is already an article on the we're not afraid website which it parodies - If this is removed then that one should be too. It seems that some people just don't like the content.Murph 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any media coverage and notability. -- Joolz 01:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a valid message is a criterion for inclusion now? In an encyclopedia? Murph, don't knock Some People, they do fine work covering up POV around this place, just the way Many, Others, and People do in this article. Bishonen | talk 01:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable parody site. Wikipedia is not a webguide. JamesBurns 07:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, new website that has yet to establish notability. Dcarrano 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable web site, vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I too, agree with Robinh's vote. (Unsigned vote by Brun8 -- Joolz 17:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
• Isn't Response to the 2005 London bombings the place for responses to the 2005 London bombings (and responses to those responses)? Uncle G 02:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete encyclopedia != webguide. --R.Koot 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Indrian 20:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with We're Not Afraid. If the latter is notable, then a parody of it should at least be mentioned in its article. — OwenBlacker 21:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Hillel 02:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Edcolins 12:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both articles as a single sentence to the main article of the bombings. Should be enough. -- 84.176.181.128 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --AI 00:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with We're not afraid or delete both Mmmbeer 17:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. DS1953 03:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stargems

I think I'd rather wait until I'm done writing the book before I add an article for it. Link 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per authors request. JamesBurns 09:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete by request of author. Sango123 13:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• qualifies for Speedy --TheMidnighters 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Author's request to Delete. Fulfill it. ~ WCFrancis 18:37, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew J."A.J." Branigan

Andrew J. "A.J." Branigan (born January 19, 1990) is first young American movie filmaker in the whole world. Well, probably not. Calton | Talk 04:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and send the kid to bed without his supper. If he creates "Andrew's home video", smack him. Postdlf 05:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete. vanity. Robinh 07:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wow. Oh, wow. At 15, he should be able to make pronouns and verbs agree in number and choose verb tenses that make sense. I only ask that he not come to my college to take English from me. Delete the article as a hoax. Geogre 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For a 10yo, little Andrew is not the best with gramer. Hello World! 19:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 23:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Binadot 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: what a joke, and an ungrammatical one at that. IINAG 18:50, 23rd July 2005 (UTC) (Vote actually by 82.37.241.191 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elegeion

Not notable band-- BMIComp (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. as above. EvilPhoenix talk 05:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. JamesBurns 09:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Allmusic page is blank. --Etacar11 23:37, 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 (no consensus), consider renaming this but that is a debate for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpyFi

Delete neologism. Article is dicdef with list of supposed entries in this genre, though I'm struggling to think of many spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction. Google results are in the mere hundreds, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Postdlf 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Agree with nominator. K1Bond007 05:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a relatively recently identified subgenre category that has been the subject of at least one book. I think the article needs serious expansion, but I don't see this as a dicdef as it's an article about a genre. Deleting this will create redlinks in a number of other articles (Alias (TV series) for certain). 23skidoo 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand. Agree with 23skidoo. 194.152.245.146 16:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction — How about The Lady Vanishes, North by Northwest, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, The Russia House, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Three Days of the Condor, and The Third Man? ☺ Whilst sources for this particular categorization are thin on the ground, this person and this person both appear to consider "SpyFi" to be a genre, and this reviewer and this reviewer consider Alias to be a specific instance of it. The CIA considers Spy-Fi to be a simple shorthand for spy fiction, though. Vote pending. Uncle G 16:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Zero usage. "Recently discovered" genre? How does one discover a genre? Recently minted neologism and a distinction without difference. Geogre 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is the kind of thing I used wikipedia for when I first came on this site. I would fine a (relatively) obscure reference, and would look it up here... and lo-and-behold, the term usually had an article. Removing entries like this reduces wikipedia's strength as a comprehensive resource. Themindset 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• It appears it should be "Spy-Fi", based on googling. This reveals a lot more usages in established sources (i.e., not Wikipedia mirrors or do-it-yourself websites). I'm reconsidering... Postdlf 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd support moving to this alternate spelling if the article is kept. I rarely see it as "SpyFi", usually it's hyphenated. 23skidoo 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm still on the fence on this. Looking at a lot of sites on "Spy-Fi", most are refering to Spy fiction, which we already have. The only place I've ever heard of Spy-Fi or SpyFi in which the article defines it is at Wikipedia and its mirrors. At this point I could agree with a redirect, but it still seems like neologism to me. K1Bond007 03:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• NNeologism. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, original research. Quale 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• I have to say keep, although it should be written as "Spy-Fi". Binadot 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The book is real, and usage of the word will probably expand in the future. The article should be more substantial, though.Bjones
• Keep. I find the tendency of spy TV show script writers (and also authors, of course) to invent gadgets, with total freedom (as in without any knowledge of or reference to actual contemporary technology), to be disturbing. Thus having a term for this sort of thing is useful, because then we can talk about that which is not spy-fi. I think the term spy-fi (or spyfi or SpyFi) is badly chosen, but I can't come up with a better one. --Peter Knutsen, 23th of July 2005.

  (Above vote is user's first edit) --14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Phroziac (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I say KEEP the idea behind the article. But I am open to suggestions for an alternative term for 'SpyFi.'
  • Unsigned comment by 63.98.134.175; IP's only edit
• Redirect to spy fiction. -Sean Curtin 02:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now, but I'd like to point out that some of the selections on the list seem like maybe someone's getting too enthusiastic. 24? Maybe it does have science-fiction elements and I just never heard about them, but I'm pretty sure Danger Man doesn't qualify -- they used some advanced technology, yes, but nothing that actually pushed into the realm of science fiction that I can think of. They say that when you have a hammer in your hand, every problem looks like a nail, and I suspect that to someone who just discovered a new sub-classification of spy fiction, every spy fiction looks like... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand and maybe make it become a Category Farlstendoiro 10:41, 26 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abhik Majumdar

Apparent vanity. reverted blanking and sent to VFD. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- not notable.--Bhadani 15:03, 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 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Foreman

Notability not established. A probable vanity. I reverted blanking of the page added {{vfd}}. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Though, Andy may be a stud. DavidH 05:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiserv

Appears to be commercial advertisement. I unblanked it and sent it to VFD. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like anadvertising blurb as noted above. Leithp 08:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep is a Nasdaq traded company. [5]. NSR (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's advertising; therefore, it doesn't matter whether the company is major or minor, good or evil, your employer or mine. This article is an ad. Ads are not allowed. Delete, unless you want to change the article. Geogre 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate NSR's rewrite. He did a great job of removing the advertising. Unfortunately, it's now a substub, so the rationale has changed, but I can't change my vote. Still, I am sincere in being appreciative of his believing in his vote enough to actually do something about it. Geogre 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising Salsb 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by NSR. Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable corporation. --YUL89YYZ 14:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by NSR. DS1953 03:33, July 25, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TGO-Team

Delete. Non-notable. Possible vanity. -- DooMDrat 06:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 09:27, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa O'Neil

Delete - damn I wish every American Idol reject didn't try and create their own wikipedia article... Sherurcij 06:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• The article actually says she was on Canadian Idol. Now the top ten American Idol finalists each become notable enough to have their own articles. Anyone know how much attention Canadian Idol finalists get? Postdlf 07:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It just says she "qualified" through various nominations, I didn't read it as her advancing far enough into the competition of thousands to be one of the recognizable names; but I could easily be wrong. (For what it's worth, I'm Canadian and haven't heard of her...but I'm not exactly Canadian Idol material ;) ) Sherurcij 07:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. She's not very ambitious if her dream is only to see "Les Miserable" (sic; her dream should be to learn how to spell it). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete every single "I was on (insert nationality of your choice) Idol!" vanity articles. These people have only one accomplishment bordering on notability- they sang in a reality show. Who will care in ten years? Nobody. --Scimitar ^parley 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Idont Havaname 22:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Monicasdude 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a member of the Top 10, not some reject who barely made it through the auditions. --Keit 21:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity not notable nonsense! FunkyChicken! 23:19, July 20, 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 both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BlackNite Records and EdgeSide

A label with only one band and the band signed to that label that doesn't even have a demo tape yet... Violates everything in WP:MUSIC. Delete both. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no sign of compliance with WP:Music guidelines for label or band. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn label vanity. And for the love of god, stop with the Capitalizing Of Every Damn Word. --Etacar11 23:40, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodham High School

Don't you think it's a ltitle bit unnotable? (preceding unsigned comment by 68.91.113.252 20:22, July 9, 2005 UTC)

Also, there is some false information in the article. How can you win the gold in the 2008 Olympics if we are in year 2005? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nvm, I corrected it. It does have one notable alumni, and it can be expanded. Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, continue to expand.--BaronLarf 16:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on nominating these schools for VfD and I'll keep on keeping. :-) — RJH 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not have wikipedia be a great resource? What's wrong with that? Themindset 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jimbo's view is clear enough. Wikipedia has room for school articles. If you think it's biased, re-word it! Robdurbar 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Read the comments. I don't see so much as one person saying it is biased. The editor who pointed out that it isn't possible to win a medal in the 2008 olympics before 2008 voted keep. And, as much as I respect Wikipedia's benevolent dictator and god-king, one snippet of an email from 2 years ago does not totally end all debate. Consensus is clear; schools nominated will not be deleted. Thus I will refrain from nomination. When they are nominated, I can still vote delete.--Scimitar ^parley 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.--Scimitar ^parley 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a place where people decide which school they want to send their kids to. It's fine to mention in Justin Gatlin's article that he went there, but aside from him, there's nothing notable here. --Idont Havaname 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• keeep this too please wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 23:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and delist. Since when do we allow anonymous posts to VfD? This is trolling, plain and simple. —RaD Man (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when have we removed their nominations? We don't. It looks like you need another reading of WP:AGF, as I see no evidence of trolling. Plenty of valued contributors have made nominations that ended in unanimous keeps, and this one isn't even that. --Dmcdevit·t 05:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep important social institution. Grace Note 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 05:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not another one. CalJW 10:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one famous alumni plus a couple unique programs doesn't add up to notability for me (few schools have the same exact curriculum). Exceptional newsworthiness and/or alumni/academic achievements should be required, eg Whitney High School. Dcarrano 14:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems decent enough to me, could do with some expansion. -- Lochaber 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wish more school stubs looked like this one. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Aardvark. WP:NPA. --Carnildo 03:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough for me, though needs expansion Salsb 15:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article which states next to nothing about notability. Attacked by hurricane?...try harder. Mandel 15:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woo (film)

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 07:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it was a huge mistake for me to create this article! (preceding unsigned comment by 67.86.88.191 00:43, June 15, 2005 UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Yawn. -- Visviva 15:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable film. 23skidoo 15:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Commercially distributed film. Capitalistroadster 17:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Upon looking at the IMDB, I dare say that it would be notable for a B movie given that Tupac was a proposed actor. I therefore think it should noted and expanded upon. Hello World! 19:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep' and expand it too Yuckfoo 23:34, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mehedi Kamal

Delete - vanity/prank Sherurcij 07:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 09:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bachelor of Electronic Commerce

• Delete : This article is about a particular degree program in a university. Title extremely misleading. Degree programs do not require Wikipedia articles. --DuKot 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : Unless this article can be generalised to multiple universities and some actual worthwile content added. Perhaps a line or two can be added about electronic commerce in the Bachelor of Commerce. Henry plantagenet 07:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Henry plantagenet. Dcarrano 14:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Age

I propose this page be deleted, since it has been inactive since creation in September 2004 and there is nothing major to archive. Hiding talk 07:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I second that; this is a half-baked Wikiproject with no contributors or accomplishments. Radiant_>|< 09:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete never really took off, it's been given enough time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unsuccesful projects should be archived somewhere for future reference. Kappa 23:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Only if they've actually done something in the first place. Please read the project before voting on it. Radiant_>|< 12:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK unsuccesful project *suggestions* should be archived too. Kappa 12:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a bad idea in the first place, and certainly inactive for long enough now. Xoloz 05:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not much chance of a resurrection -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wind-up Willy on Wheels

This appears never to have been listed. --Dmcdevit·t 07:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "sex toy" described is obscure, despite the article's claim that it is "popular", and the self-reference to Wikipedia vandal Willy on wheels is unacceptable. Besides, this page was created by User:Windupremisonwheels, whose contributions and user page strongly indicate that he has created this solely for disruption purposes. Phils 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vandal-like page. --Habap 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that is rather unfair. I am merely a fan of the gentleman, rather than a sockpuppet, and believe that the article should exist, though it definitely needs cleaning and expanding etc. I myself am certainly not a vandal, so if you do choose to delete this article, I shan't complain.--Windupremisonwheels 23:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A fan of a vandal? Heresy, best keep that to yourself. I almost blocked you for your username without even checking who you are. Perhaps I should have. This link is Broken 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of the damned thing except in the context of the vandal, who should not be encouraged in any way. -- Arwel 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is real and be yours for $4.99 (+shipping) from [6] but of course …

• Speedily to BJAODN as a record of where the vandal got his name from. -- RHaworth 03:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Delete - More Willy on Wheels sillyness. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. We are definitely not going to have an article on Willy, who is not notable outside Wikipedia. The sex toy is too obscure to have its own article, if we can't say anything more than "it's a sex toy". JRM · Talk 23:45, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

  On revisiting, if it matters: this is actually a gag present, not a sex toy. At least I wouldn't imagine it being used as such... comfortably. JRM · Talk 02:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• 'Delete no more trophies for the vandal. This link is Broken 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Exterminate!, blank, lock. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. CDThieme 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remember to delete Image:Bachelorette-dot-com 1851 34381307.jpg at the same time. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 06:02 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and give User:Windupremisonwheels a permanent block (he has Nazi and Ku Klux Klan propaganda on his user page in addition to the picture of this "toy". --Idont Havaname 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN --Carnildo 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete don't BJAODN it just encourages this silliness -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and place a hard-ban on everyone associated with this "willy" vandalism. Binadot 17:10, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy; no context. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kilil

content-free; Google returned zero hits Robinh 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, no context. --Dmcdevit·t 07:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Speedy candidate with little or no content. JamesBurns 09:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy see above JGorton 15:02, 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 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 no consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilcox Group and Wilcox group

Clean Up If we delete the spam, it could become usefull. MicroFeet 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wilcox group for naming convention and patent advertising, cleanup and expand Wilcox Group. Aecis 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wilcox group as it is clearly advertising (written in first person plural) and poorly written at that. Melanchthon 15:49, 1 August 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. Joyous (talk) 13:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronauts

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, consiting of one line, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 07:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Include the {{inactive}} tag to include it in the Category:Inactive WikiProjects - Skysmith 09:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Now see, that would have been handy a week ago before I marked a load of projects with {{template:inactive}}. Hiding talk 10:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one line of text is not a wikiproject. Not even an inactive one. Radiant_>|< 09:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Xoloz 05:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wasn't even a wikiproject to start with -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:28, 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 delete. Joyous (talk) 13:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libres y Locos

Does not assert notability. brenneman^(t)(c) 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• I dunno, kids today, free *and* crazy. Dunc|☺ 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable... guys who go to sports games? I think? Dcarrano 14:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Define Notability: Obviously they will not be notorious outside Mexico. They are however most notable within Mexico. The stub is very poorly written and I would vote to delete on that de-merit but notability seems to be the point, the "Libres y Locos" is not a cheerleader squad or a bunch of guys who go to sports games (Actually, two people who voted for delete admit not knowing what "Libres y locos" really are).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Chen

Non-notable student. Delete. jni 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 09:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable vanity. --PrologFan {Talk} 18:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:48, 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 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Cheung

Non-notable (probably created by the same person who did Mark Chen, which is also on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as attack page or nonsensical vandalism. jni 07:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the person who wrote the article also wrote the "US ILLEGALLY! INS, PLEASE ARREST THIS BASTARD!!!" bit. But it does not matter when the article gets whacked, as long as it is whacked, I am not worried. Also, thanks for restoring the vfd tag. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV nonsense/prank. JamesBurns 09:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable vanity. --PrologFan {Talk} 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 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 07:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of past VfDs

Apparently there have only been four articles on VFD... Someone was confused; we have Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and this is redundant/irrelevant/unused/useless. No point, so delete. --Dmcdevit·t 07:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely redundant. The standard way of archiving is superior. jni 08:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, then consider the paradox of listing this page on List of past VFDs. Radiant_>|< 09:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant page. JamesBurns 09:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not needed, redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:29, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blank page vandalism

I'd vote delete as this seems to be a neologism. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be articles on different types of vandalism, so it could be a merge candidate. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, it should be merge, but not sure where. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to [[Wikipedia:...]] namespace. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to WP:VAND. Radiant_>|< 09:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Reduce to a single sentence and merge with the list in WP:VAND, the rest is redundant with other information in the Wikipedia namespace. Funnily enough, the creating user has been blocked for vandalism in the past, so it might have been written by a real expert... --IByte 11:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I thought you weren't to create redirects across namespaces so perhaps merge with vandalism instead of WP:VAND? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It could be moved to the Wikipedia namespace, merged with WP:VAND, and the article space redirect deleted. That would preserve the article history, get the self-referential stuff out of the article space, and avoid a cross-namespace redirect. Of course, this doesn't actually seem to be worth all the effort—so I'm going to say just DELETE this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not worth the effort of merging. --Carnildo 22:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-referential. Gazpacho 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to merge. JamesBurns 07:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the person feels WP:VAND doesn't adequately explain this, he/she can discuss it there. Dcarrano
• Delete (as above) - The Time Killer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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!) 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria Hungary

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, with information moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states/Austria Hungary, admittedly an also inactive project but a better place to archive what material is here Hiding talk 07:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this project never had any participants or contributions. Radiant_>|< 09:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, skeleton. Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Xoloz 05:18, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West End Marketplace

Delete: Not notable Muhgcee 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:41, 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!) 07:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Werkkrew

Alexa ranked 2,246,522! And they're going down, not up (apparently it's possible to go down from there). "[...]creators have hopes of turning it into a full fledged record label at some point in the future."?! I don't doubt it's advertisement of a non-notable website. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 08:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising/not-notable as stated above. Leithp 08:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit. Dcarrano 14:15, July 20, 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reyes, Jun Cruz

Non-notable person from the Philippines Jojit fb 08:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  Did you check out the works listed to see whether they are for real? If they are, keep. If they aren't, delete. Grace Note 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jun Cruz Reyes, is , surely a notable Filipino. He is a gifted writer and his works has inspired a new twist in Philippine literature, specifically contemporary Tagalog or Filipino literature, because of the lightness and casualness in tone and humor-inspired, satirical style. This is notably evident in his famous "Utos ng Hari" short story and the novel "Tutubi, tutubi, huwag magpahuli sa mamang salbahe" and the latest Centennial Award winning great novel "Etsa-Puwera" all of which I have read. Saluyot 03:31, August 2, 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan M. Hantman

Tagged for speedy, but not a candidate. To me "Architect of the Capitol" seems like a notable title and that any architect holding it would be a notable one. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — not non-notable — RJH 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. --PrologFan {Talk} 18:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since Architect of the Capitol is a real position. They are the main people who oversee the Capitol building grounds in Washington D.C. and also the people who administer the flag program the US Capitol runs. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The notability of this American architect is well established. Hall Monitor 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: shoudn't the middle name be spelled full in article name? Pavel Vozenilek 00:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry for the speedy tag I placed. I mistakenly thought somebody wanted to advertise his resume. Resumes are uploaded here sometimes.--Jondel 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable government official. JuntungWu 12:36, 1 August 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 Speedied. Attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Hambrock

To start off with, Josh Hambrock receives only 8 google hits, the chief claim to notability seems to be winning some sort of informal contest which I think was about predicting Oscar winners. Further down the article we find information which I don't think even the subject had any clue about. Looks to me like a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy hoax/attack page. Well, this is interesting (ok, not really)... what looks at first glance like a silly hoax vanity article is actually a silly hoax attack page. Basically a longwinded (and therefore dumber) version of the "___ IS GAY!!!11" articles we get fairly frequently. If anyone needs proof, check out the part about STDs in the next-to-last paragraph. Even the basic facts are wrong: The current Broadway run of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? started in 2005, not 2004, and Bill Irwin (not "Irvin") is still in the lead as George. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:56, 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 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 07:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doymekokosh

Looks like band advertising to me. Much is written in first person, and the google search gave me 11 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete more hits as Doy MeKokosh, but still nn -Harmil 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no Allmusic page, no notability established in article. --TheMidnighters 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy; biographical article with no claim of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dahimtuta

Seemingly completely made up/uncited and a vandalism/troll playground. zen master T 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Candidate for speedy delete Manik Raina 10:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How so? Any particular criteria? -Harmil 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn warez kiddie, vanity -Harmil 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable warez vanity. JamesBurns 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, currently the article doesn't convince me he is notable. Thue | talk 11:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE! This guy is full of himself!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gush

Personal article of no interest 212.68.150.1 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is no blog. Manik Raina 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very cute rat and all, but nn, vanity -Harmil 10:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cute, but not wiki material - not even the line about climbing on the shelves. Grutness...wha? 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Awwwwww. "Delete', but make sure to keep the picture for Wikicommons. DS 17:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waldegrave School for Girls

This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Well documented and nicely linked to topics we should have like Leading Edge Partnership -Harmil 10:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I wrote this, it's not my fault it sounds like advertising, it's mostly from a government report [7]. See also wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 11:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Cedars 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is education in Twickenham, London not notable? Kappa 12:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. Good point. And other schools get kept, since school = notable. Article's a bit gushy, but that's always fixable. Grutness...wha? 13:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot see what distinguishes this school from other unnotable schools that ought to be deleted. Dunc|☺ 13:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• D. nn. Radiant_>|< 14:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep!! Elliott C. Bäck 14:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Also, Kappa, if you wrote the article, it is your fault if it sounds like advertising. Whatever the govt. report said, you chose to add that information in the way that you did. --Scimitar ^parley 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • So should I have left things out, or gone digging for something negative to say? Kappa 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Either/or. I'm not picky. ;) Seriously though, if you don't have enough information to keep an article from sounding like advertising, maybe you shouldn't start the article. Also, I don't actually think it does sound like advertising; you note in the text that all info comes from the govt. report. I just found your "it's not my fault" response slightly disingenuous. --Scimitar ^parley 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Adding and removing information for the purpose of sounding unbiased introduces actual bias. If I follow your policy, I will be easier to make articles on average school than good ones. Kappa 16:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you read my post aside from the first tongue-in-cheek line? Editors don't exist to copy their sources verbatim; they must exercise judgement and determine what from their sources is unbiased and NPOV. Also, as to adding information, what is that but finding another source and getting a more rounded, balanced view of the article's subject.--Scimitar ^parley 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ofsted reports give rounded, balanced views by reporting major weaknesses when then find them. If they don't find any, that's significant fact worth reporting. They have a tendancy to flatter schools, so I toned that aspect down. I didn't copy the report wholesale, but strengths/weaknesses and popularity are some of the most important aspects for describing what is distinctive about a school. Kappa 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like the style, rewrite it. VfD is not cleanup. -- Visviva 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Banana. As above. --Carnildo 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is a great resource, and should continue to be. Themindset 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion if every high school is going to be created, at least merge them into a list by area. This article contains nothing notable on its own. --Tim Pope 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion. I'd also like to say that for those who are extreme school inclusionists who want to draw and quarter the VfD nominators and so forth, there is the option of starting a separate wiki for schools, where any school can be included without question of whether or not it is encyclopedic/notable/etc. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Or we could just take that approach to Wikipedia, which the consensus currently supports. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable on its own. --Idont Havaname 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it does not look like advertising to me Yuckfoo 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Go banana. Gamaliel 01:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Other wise Wikipedians have noticed that this is a dead horse discussion, where have you been? —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. n. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encylopedic as written or any indication at this point that it will be. If the only content is a government report, it makes you wonder. Vegaswikian 06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some notability. JamesBurns 07:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As noted by the nominator it is as notable as other schools. CalJW 10:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 14:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex White

Non-notable (22 year old) student political groupie. Is one of several co-authors of a soon-to-be published handbook on the most recent installment of the "Ars Magica" game, apparently intentionally misspelled "Arse Magica" in the article. Some of the claims of notability seem exaggerated. Unreferenced claim that his blog that "is a frequent reference point for campaigners" in Melbourne or student government. A careful Google search excluding other "Alex Whites" brings up only about 200 unique hits, mostly from an active blogging community at his college. Nonetheless, no printed sources. So he appears to be a young political-type who may someday be notable. Delete or userfy. (if one of the several users named "Alex White" who've been editing recently wants to claim it.) Willmcw 10:17, July 19, 2005 / revised 11:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable student. JamesBurns 10:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if the whole thing is true (and it sounds dubious), still wouldn't be notable enough. NN, student vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by a banned sockpuppeteer who couldn't write a neutral article if his life depended on it; also not notable. Ambi 12:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cattywhompus

Non-notable slang word. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not worthy of move to Wiktionary either. KeithD 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Just because some non-notable guy at some school used it once in the entire history of the world doesn't mean it's suddenly an encyclopedic concept. — JIP | Talk 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This word has a number of spelling variants (catawampus seems the most prevalent). The online dictionaries I consulted seemed pretty uncertain as to etymology. [8][9] VisibleInk 17:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. But it is worthy of a Wiktionary entry; my family and others that I know have been using this word since I was a child. Tygertyger 17:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Change the spelling to the more conventional "catawampus" if you like, but it is a good word to include in Wikiworld. Oh, and p.s. to the grump with the comment about the "non-notable guy" -- it was a truly notable woman, pal. LDEWMCB 22:45, August 1, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valuelabs

Advertising, spam, no content (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original was a copyvio; the creator removed copyvio notice and reworded, then blanked this VfD. FreplySpang (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- mere promotional material, with no factual content beyond the minimal.--Simon Cursitor 12:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 14:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beers of the World

I propose deletion, project inactive with one meaningful edit in February since creation in September 2004. Hiding talk 12:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer --BaronLarf 16:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see the point of the merge, but leaving a redirect behind seems pointless. How is someone going to type this one in? Hiding talk 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trivial inactive project. JamesBurns 07:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to redirect wikiprojects imho. Radiant_>|< 12:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004. Hiding talk 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV channels

I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 12:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations--BaronLarf 16:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I can see the point of the merge, but leaving a redirect behind seems pointless. How is someone going to type this one in? Hiding talk 17:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ... for the time being. I created it it, in the hope that other people might join me in bringing all the british TV channels up to scratch. However immediately after I lost my job etc etc, so never really got anywhere with it. Now I realise it has been over a year since I did anything, I'd like the chance to try and get some other members to the project and make it an active project. If I haven't been able to activate it in a month or so then merge into it's parent. MrWeeble 22:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life Insurance Corporation of India

I'm simply questioning the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. What do you think, as I'm not so sure. Silles Sellis 12:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No content other than a website link. KeithD 15:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Keep due to changes made below. Good save, guys. KeithD 16:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments only, no Vote in response to the query by Silles Sellis: this is a corporate entity, which is as of date, fully owned by the Government of India. It is the largest life insurance company of India. Headquartered in Mumbai, which is considered the financial capital of India, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as of date, has 7 Zonal Offices and 100 divisional offices located in different parts of India, at least 2048 branches located in different cities and towns of India, and has a net work of around one million agents for soliciting life insurance business from the public. I think it is enough for now. I may continue to write a full article, running into at least 12/13 paragraphs, but I would not do that right now, as I want to encourage the creator of this page to incorporate at least these points in the article. --Bhadani 15:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Bhadani obviously knows something about this. I will copy this text into the article and vote to keep the resulting article. Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I also deleted the weblink, which linked to a dodgy 95meg.com site; if there's an official site for the corporation it ought to be added. Quaere, the images from {{corp-stub}} and {{india-stub}} look awful when juxtaposed; is there a magic word that allows the stub links to be added without pictures? Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. To-day, I am feeling a bit tired. I shall expand the article suitably very soon. --Bhadani 16:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the revised article. Aecis 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanded 4 paras mostly on History, will expand more.--Bhadani 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the revised article per Bhadani. This company apparently has over 150 million policies in force. --Metropolitan90 23:49, 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. Woohookitty 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Child safety

I'm proposing it for deletion since there are no meaningful edits since August 04. Also, it seems somewhat controversial, in that I'm not sure where it fits in with NPOV. Hiding talk 12:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a failed attempt at organized "POV-pushing" (bleh, there has to be a better expression for that). Deletissimo grande. --FOo 01:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per FOo. Xoloz 05:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inactive project, agree with F0o. JamesBurns 07:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 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 12:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese characters

I'm proposing deletion since it hasn't been meaningfully updated since May 2003, has no real definition, and the talk page mainly features a long conversation about whether Chinese characters are encyclopedix which might be more usefully archived elsewhere, maybe Chinese character Hiding talk 13:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inactive project, as per Hiding. JamesBurns 07:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 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 (speedily?) deleted. Eugene van der Pijll 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neotextualdesublimation

I suspect this article was generated by the Postmodernism Generator. Googling for phrases from the article (like "Neotextual desublimation" and "Contexts of collapse") turns up either the Postmodernism Generator or other pages generated from it. Sneaky... TheCoffee 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per above. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, that's a Postmodernism Generator work -- but it seems the author forgot to cite his sources! --Carnildo 22:46, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Squires

Vanity. Most of 195.224.186.179 (talk · contribs)'s entries have been vandalism. Dunc|☺ 13:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. KeithD 15:32, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Street Stupid

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. smoddy 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.  Grue  21:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Idont Havaname 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Crystal ball, vanity. Xoloz 05:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Thivierge-Gaulin

Vanity/hoax. smoddy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Little or no content. No such thing as a samalatron. Obvious vanity.
• Delete, not notable. No google hits for samalatron. Thue | talk 15:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As above. KeithD 15:31, 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 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 merge, but there is a difficulty with the target. THe suggested target in the debate is List of characters in the Harry Potter books, but that article does not accomodate descriptions of characters, and merging the article there would more or less amount to creating only a redirect (this character is already mentioned there). Therefore I will be merging this to Sybill Trelawney instead, and hope that nobody will notice... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra Trelawney

Seems to be highly obscure, I don't remember this character in the books at all. Corection: Book 5, Ch. 15 JGorton 14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into List of characters in the Harry Potter books. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 15:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Android79 and WP:FICT. Dcarrano 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't there a real mythilogical figure called Cassandra? I think Rowling is reffering to her, so just change this article to something like "Cassandra Trelawny is a fictional character in Harry Potter who is based on the mythilogical figure Cassandra." But yeah, It probably needs to be in List of characters in the Harry Potter books so I vote merge. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. The character is in the books, but is no longer alive and only referred to in passing. Superm401 | Talk 20:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andersson Burger

Dubious type of burger, claims to be the vegetarian version of the Johnson burger, which is also on VFD. NSR (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Google has one unrelated page for "Andersson burger". KeithD 15:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per KeithD. Xoloz 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan Mahon

This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion: Not notable.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Insulting. NN. KeithD 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Someone removed the vfd somehow. I just discovered the article via a random article search. --One Salient Oversight 12:30, 6 October 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 12:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CQB_K-9

Advertising... but please don't sic one of your dogs on me. Gunmetal 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advert. Also tries to claim copyright of the article. KeithD 15:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hint to editors: If you find yourself writing an article in the first person, there's a good chance you're writing an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Fallstorm 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Inquiry: Close_Quarter_Battle_K-9 is the exact same article. If this VfD reaches consensus, would this one be deleted as well or should I do a separate VfD nomination? Fallstorm 20:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No separate VFD needed for identical page. Manning 05:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising. Samw 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - blatant advertising. Also delete Close_Quarter_Battle_K-9. Manning 05:18, 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 already Merged and redirected. android79 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Larry Sanders show

Already a correct article The Larry Sanders Show Occono 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. This did not need to be listed here; you are looking for Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• I went ahead and merged and redirected the article to The Larry Sanders Show. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you both very much. -Occono

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Riley

Vanity, I couldn't find anything remotely encyclopedic (or any mention at all that I could see) while searching for him. Delete Rx StrangeLove 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. KeithD 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no claim to notability -Harmil 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He appears to be a commercial director of BAA plc, but isn't notable. David | Talk 15:54, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus, but I'm going to move it per Doc and take this to CP per Durin. Dmcdevit·t 08:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Note that it was moved here. Here's its talk page. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our lady of ransom

Strikes me as highly unremarkable. JGorton 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Don't care either way - but if kept please capitalise and add the word 'School' --Doc (?) 15:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it isn't notable. --Scimitar ^parley 15:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move per User talk:Doc glasgow. Schools are notable. Will WP fall over from the strain of listing every school in the world? No more so than listing every little village in the world.... I fixed the formatting. -Harmil 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The entire text of the article, as it now stands, is a direct cut/paste from [10]. The article should probably be placed on copyvio status. --Durin 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. (And rewrite to avoid copyvio). Pburka 13:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns. Dcarrano 14:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rehabilitate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools standards. DAVODD 01:29, July 25, 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 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smoksha

Neologism dicdef, 77 google hits. Thue | talk 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As above. KeithD 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Thue -Harmil 15:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No idea why it has to be deleted!! Surely, there is more loose stuff on wikipedia??

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Fitchett

Not notable. Thue | talk 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity -Harmil 15:41, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Clouds

No meaningful edits since creation in August 2003 and nothing there to archive. Hiding talk 15:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, the changes have been insignificant since its start. -Harmil 15:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, empty Pavel Vozenilek 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-book

Neologism, original research, wishfull thinking. Not an encyclopedic article. Better suited to a user subpage. Thue | talk 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Fallstorm 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal ball. Dcarrano 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. fortune-telling. Binadot 17:19, 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 keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of musicians that have made guest appearances on Nickelodeon shows

Not terribly encyclopedic; it's not as though musicians who appear on Nickelodeon appear nowhere else or are somehow unique. Also, currently contains one (1) entry. tregoweth 15:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic -Harmil 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• I did point to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of musicians that are popular amongst Nickelodeon fans in the edit summary of the edit that created the article. Uncle G 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. Xoloz 05:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep iff renamed to List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on Nickelodeon shows. No need to limit to musicians when there are currently only two entries; a "celebrity list" is in keeping with precedent for other networks. Xoloz 09:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, on the basis that this list was suggested by several voters in the VfD Uncle G points to. Give it a few months, as we would do for an article that had recently survived a VfD. Pburka 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I don't think that a suggestion in a VfD should be accorded the same weight as the survival of a VfD. People will throw out suggestions that they might not even fully support on reflection. I'm a firm due process supporter, but, if voters like this list, it isn't too much to ask that they come here to vote for it, since this is the first time this list has been up for a decision. Xoloz 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not encylclopedic. Indrian 20:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We've kept more pointless (IMHO, of course) lists. This compromise could be useful to people who are fans of both Nick and music, and can grow. Niteowlneils 00:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward keep as well. While it's not likely to be viewed on its own, it certainly can make a good companion piece to the main Nickelodeon article and can be wikied accordingly. - Lucky 6.9 01:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I suggested at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of musicians that are popular amongst Nickelodeon fans that this was a better list to have. We have similar lists, such as List of celebrities on the Simpsons. Nickelodeon is a very prominent cable TV channel, and artists appearing on there usually get a good following from that channel's demographic (and the successful ones usually get started by appearing there, on the Disney Channel, and on similar kids' TV channels). So if we could take this list and expand it to include names from Nick's past history (which goes back to 1979) and the international versions of it, then that would certainly have encyclopedic value. (By the way, thanks to Uncle G for letting me know that this article was up for VfD.) --Idont Havaname 03:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not unsympathetic to that argument -- however, since the list has two entries now, how about renaming it List of celebrities who have made a guest appearance on Nickelodeon shows? Why just musicians, when there are only two as of now, and I distinctly recall seeing Bill Cosby, for example, at the first Kid's Choice Awards in 1988? Xoloz 05:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'd support that; it's in keeping with all of the "List of celebrities who have appeared on (some show, channel, or something like that)" lists. When the list gets big enough, it would be good to divide it (within the list, not create new articles) into musicians, actors, and so on. I think it's worth noting that Bill Cosby appeared on a Nickelodeon show. (Though I haven't looked at the related articles very much at all - are hosts of awards shows included on those, or just people who appear on the regular daily or weekly shows?) --Idont Havaname 06:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I have changed my vote accordingly. Xoloz 09:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This needs to be properly maintained, not deleted, although it's not worth keeping in its current state. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic. These artists are not unique just because they were on nickelodeon. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!}|^{Vote on my RfA!} 16:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if renamed as suggested by Xoloz. -- Yvh11a 02:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stub and disambiguation message example

For a long time, this page listed all the stub categories. Now, it's a description of how to modify your CSS settings to make a couple of templates look different. Is there a general how-to page for tweaking Wikipedia CSS? I couldn't find one, except on MediaWiki -- maybe this belongs there. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to have a page just to describe these two templates. If nothing else, put the CSS instructions on the talk pages of the templates themselves.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way, nothing links here.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless now. Radiant_>|< 12:12, July 20, 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!) 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abreaction photography

Neologism describing a technique used by, apparently, but one photographer, and one whose notability is questionable at best. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable yet. -Harmil 15:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree. --Hooperbloob 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiji Island Mermaid Press

Not notable. I had not realized we have an article on this publisher until now. I spoke with Marc Snyder, the proprieter of this establishment, some time back while verifying some facts regarding the now-deleted Daniel C. Boyer article. Marc told me at that time that they typically produce 10-25 copies of the materials that they publish, and that distribution is primarily to a list of subscriber/sponsors. Insofar as none of the chapbooks they have published are particularly notable, I believe that this falls well short of the notability we would expect for a publisher. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wrong side of the line, promotional article created by a dedicated promotionalist. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on UCs research. Vegaswikian 06:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eaton's Corrasable Bond

Non-notable brand of typing paper. Of the many brands of typing paper that have existed over the years, and indeed of the several types of erasable paper, this is not particularly notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Article needs improvement. Would be better as a redirect to an article on erasable typewriter paper in general. Erasable typewriter paper was an important technology in the 1950s and 1960s and my recollection is that in the United States Eaton's Corrasable truly was the dominant brand, and a "genericized" tradename like Kleenex or Scotch tape. Big stationary stores might carry other brands but always carried Corrasable, and any store that carried typing paper at all would be likely to have it. It was pretty much superseded by opaquing technogies like Ko-Rec-Type and Wite-Out and Liquid Paper and "correcting Selectrics." As a grad student I still remember the excitement when a colleague brought us the news that the university would now accept photocopied theses as long as they were photocopied onto 100%-rag paper. That meant we could type our theses on Corrasable Bond and photocopy them onto thesis paper for submission! As of 2005 is the stuff even manufactured? A search on www.staples.com for "corrasable" yields no hits, while one on "Eaton" yields 35, most apparently relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 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!) 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Classic, international and cult cinema

No major edits since creation in July 2004, and nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 16:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inactive project. JamesBurns 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:13, July 20, 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 12:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archspace

Non-encycolpedic. It is a definition and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If anyplace, it should go to the Wiktionary. Epolk 16:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. — JIP | Talk 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:54, 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 Userfy --Allen3 ^talk 12:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Made it Whack

Lyrics of some song. This is linked from User:Admiral Roo's page, along with a bunch of other similar lyrics pages. Userfy if the song is Admiral Roo's own work, otherwise delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with above, but contact Admiral Roo. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

See my entry on Talk:Made it Whack. --Admiral Roo 17:56, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/General

No major edits to project page since creation in June 2004, and subpage consists of one comment. Hiding talk 16:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment You are quite correct, I'm afraid. Is it traditional to VfD inactive projects? Whoever put the project together seems to have done much work. Would it be appropriate to userfy and copy this to subpage in the creator's namespace? -Willmcw 20:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't really a policy on WikiProjects, at least that I can find. They just tend to get mothballed. I'd argue there isn't a huge amount of work or discussion here, but I'm not going to press the point, it's a borderline delete with me. If it sparks interest to the point people reactivate it, so much the better. Hiding talk 21:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If someone else gets interested he would likely prefere to start from scratch than from such poor pages. Pavel Vozenilek 00:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inactive project. JamesBurns 08:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:13, July 20, 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 12:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Creature objects

I can't make any sense of it, it hasn't been edited since creation in June 2004, and even then the creation barely advanced beyond slapping the WikiProject template onto the page. Hiding talk 16:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasonas as vote just above. This would apply to other projects down but I have no time to check. Pavel Vozenilek 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:13, July 20, 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 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chevronism

delete: google report only 3 hits (twice in a forum and once in freedictionary). Article in a very bad form, and it doesn't seems serious. Cate 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Flowerparty 17:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense articles should be speedied, not nominated here. --FOo 01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I get zero google hits for the title. Soory, FOo, this is not nonsense according to the Wikipedia definition, and so not speediable (as much as I wish it were). Denni☯ 02:53, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:03, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Crayola

No meaningful edits since brief flurry from creation in June 2004 until October 2004 Hiding talk 17:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inactive project. JamesBurns 08:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding (LOL crayola??). Radiant_>|< 12:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Computer file formats

No edits since creation in August 2004, nothing here that can't be recreated if needed again. Hiding talk 17:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:13, July 20, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephan Kinsella 2

Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. -Splash 17:55, 19 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.

• Note. The original page history and talk page have now been restored. (talk page is at talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1). -Willmcw 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. Nskinsella 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Splash for cleaning up the page creation. My concern is that Mr. Kinsella himself recreated this new page about himself. It was already voted deleted once. He wants a second bite at the apple for his own self-interest.He has commented about it on his blog. [11] Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created. This looks like self-promotion. I do not think Wikipedia should be used like this. I do not think that it is appropriate. Mr. Kinsella looks notable enough to me to have an article about him. As far as I know, the information is accurate, however, it seems hard for the article to be neutral when he wrote it about himself. He certainly speaks very highly of himself, "He has drawn on his expertise as a practicing patent lawyer to become a leading libertarian opponent of intellectual property laws; his seminal argument 'Against Intellectual Property' has become widely referred to and cited." This does not sound neutral. I suppose it could be rewritten, but who is going to correct Mr. Kinsella about himself, so I think this creates an on-going problem for the article. I cast yes delete vote.--RyanKoppelman 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • RyanK: I had no idea until you just wrote this that I am under patent attorneys. I had nothing to do with this. I am really not interested in self-promotion. I just want people interested in my writing to be able to access it. As for the promotional aspects to my entry, I'll modify and make it shorter and more factual. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. None of the delete voteres have tried to follow the policy. Let me summarize: I have published books and articles, with audiences that satisfy the criteria. I have 19,000 Google hits. I am more well known than the average college professor. My info is factual and easily verifiable. Moreover, I am as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition; and this articles has gotten a large amount of attention and is seen as one of the leading pieces in the libertarian anti-IP movement. By Wikie's own standards, I believe my entry is acceptable, as was the initial one not put up by me and therefore never should have been deleted. I would at least like to see Wiki editors citing and applying Wiki policy if they are doing to cast a delete vote. For example, why do I not qualify, in view of the factors I have noted, that I got from Wiki's own policy pages? Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, if you take out the domains mises.org, stephankinsella.com, lewrockwell.com and other domains that have blogs that you post to, your mentions drop to 13,000. Most of the 13,000 other hits are posts by you to other blogs, and responses to posts to the other blogs, since you seemingly spend every waking hour logged onto the internet to rebut your critics. So please don't go around claiming 19,000 hits as if these were people independently citing your work. Most of these instances are blog comments, and answers to your blog comments. Jstrummer 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created." "Someone", that's me (there is a history link for each page). I did put "Stephan Kinsella" link in the patent attorney page as "notable patent attorney", because it seemed to me that he was notable enough to be there. I have no connection with Stephan Kinsella whatsoever, please stop the suspicion, I find it offensive when a statement is made with no support. Thanks. If the article about him is kept, keep the link in the patent attorney, otherwise drop it. (see my vote below). --Edcolins 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• At User:Splash's suggestion, I have moved my verbose comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 page. Please see those comments for my explanation of my entry and for my defense that it either not be deleted, or that consistent standards be applied as to my and others' bios. Because of my obvious bias, I had previous cast no vote, but Splash informs me it's my right to vote to keep, so, I vote keep, while acknowledging my vested interest. -Nskinsella 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• I was the original contributor of the first article on Stephan Kinsella, although I contributed it before I started my present account. My contribution was based on a growing number of refereed journal articles, books, and lectures in which Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" was being cited. I was the original founder of the Birmingham, AL and Auburn, AL 2600 meetings, and ran an "h/p/c/a/v" BBS in the 90's. Since the late 90's, I have been very interested in IP, and have lectured on it at Auburn University and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. When I came across Kinsella's IP article in 2001 (in the Journal of Libertarian Studies), I had not met him, nor anyone else who knew him personally, but I did meet numerous academics who were taking his dismantling of IP very seriously. I personally thought that it was an essential step towards an exhaustive conciliation of the Hacker Ethic with property rights. Kinsella is now a frequent lecturer at Mises Institute events, and is constantly cited by eminent scholars like Walter Block as /the/ go-to guy on IP theory. As the point most germane to this discussion though, please let me reiterate that I was the original article contributor, and only mentioned the entry to Stephan when I asked his permission to release an image (stephankinsella.jpg) from his website into the public domain. I will cast a vote to keep. DickClarkMises 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• I think keep. Not really a vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Certainly it is a vanity article, written and edited by the subject. It was deleted here Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella just three months ago in a VfD which had a number of sockpuppets participating on his behalf. This article appears to have been recreated in part to compete with that of a rival, Tom G. Palmer, that Kinsella has used a blog campaign to try to get deleted. -Willmcw 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Willmcw: Have you taken into account that I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry? I had nothing to do with either; I assume both predate my recent entry; and I was just made aware of it after doing a google search on Wikipedia. Is this no some indicia of notability? Those entries will pointlessly go to a blank page, if you delete my entry. Why? Nskinsella 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And that version was deleted by a properly-run VFD. This version was written and posted by you. This is the version that we are discussing. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. It was not a vanity piece. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. Why do you disagree with it? I fail to see the relevance of my motives for posting the entry, but if you must know, after looking at the criteria for notability more closely due to the delete debate about the Palmer entry, I realized my entry qualifies and should not have been deleted. The preveious delete debate did not cite of follow Wiki policy. People just used their airy-fairy discretion to say "notable" or not. BUt there are criteria, and I expect Wiki editors to make a good faith effort to apply them. WHich of the policy criteria that I have listed do you deny? Notice, you yourself are inconsisten, Willmcw: you voted to keep the Tom G. Palmer entry, on the grounds that he is openly gay at a think tank. This is ridiculous. What if I am a closeted gay?-wouldn't your policy punish gays in the closet? Moreover, as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition. You seem to be nonobjective in my case. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The previous version, since you keep mentioning it, was most likely written by you originally. It was then posted to a copyrighted webpage. Another editor, DickClarkMises, posted it here verbatim. That was a clear "copyvio" and I marked it as such. You refused to release the text under our GFDL and made disparaging comments about me on your blogs (thanks). We undertook to write a fresh version that was not a copyvio, and that version was subsequently VfDed (in a process which saw several brand-new editors voting to "keep") three months ago.
    • Regarding the Palmer article, Wikipedia is not consistent. Please do not try to prove a WP:POINT that if your rival gets something then you must too. Nonetheless I see you said there that you are not notable for your writing. If not that then what? On the other hand, in the spirit of equity, I'd be happy to change my vote to "delete" on that page if you'll do the same here. The chance that the Palmer article (which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion) may have started as autobiography and be currently edited by its subject are bothersome. Subjects who edit their articles are almost always a problem.
      • Willmcw, don't you think it's a bit ... off... of you to offer to change your vote on Palmer? Shouldn't you simply vote (a) in accordance with your good faith application of Wiki biograph policy; and (b) try to vote consistently? I assure you that my first Wiki entry was not vanity, nor did I do it or have anything to do with it. And as I have modifed the current version, it is short, unobtrusive, purely factual, and completely non-vanity.
        • I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor. Anyway, the offer still stands. You said you're not notable, you say Palmer isn't notable either. If you vote to delete both of them then, as a gesture of "wikilove", I'll do the same. Oh, and if you had nothing to do with the previous version, then I guess "nothing" includes the fact that you wrote it, edited it, and then you (and your friends) fought to keep it. It didn't just "happen." -Willmcw 06:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Willmcw: I said i was not notable in a colloquial sense; but when I read the criteria, I believe I qualify. As for the previous version: I meant I had nothing to do with an entry being put up in the first place. Dick Clark is not my friend; I do not even know him. I cannot access the origianl article since you had it deleted, but yes, he probably got most of the info from my online bio. that is true. Once it was up, and i was made aware of it, I did edit it, which is not impermissible. I actually did not fight to keep it, when you deleted it, I just objected to your calling it a vanity page since it was NOT. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
            • As I've already told you, the entire history of the article has been restored and is here: [12]. Here is the very first edit [13]. Please note that I did not call the original version "vanity" in its VfD. I have called this version "vanity" since it plainly fits the label.-Willmcw 20:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this is not just a vanity page - it is an advertisement for some very expensive books. Follow this link in the bibliography, Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (1998-present), to go to a page to buy a $600 book, one of several such links. Even in the previous version that was deleted we'd had those cleaned up and de-commercialized. The version that we deleted was better than this. -Willmcw 00:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Willmcw: I have removed the books. I can't find the original version of my entry, unfortunately. You say I wrote the original article; yet I have denied this and you have no proof. In fact Dick Clark admitted to doing it. Are you calling us both liars? That is uncalled for. I could have put my entry up anonymously or asked someone to do it. I have been honest. Your insinuation is uncalled for. As for copyright, there was not one, since I consented to it. The VfD of that first page was improper, since I clearly meet the criteria specified on Wiki policy. You have just asserted your own opinion as to consistency, but not tried to apply actual Wiki standards. As for Wiki not being consistent--no, it might not be, but you, as an individual, should be, otherwise you reveal unfairness, bias, or arbitrariness. Your alleged reason for Palmer's "keep" vote is that he is openly gay; this is absurd. Others say he has a large number of google hits, thus they vote "keep"; my google votes are higher. Others point to Palmer's publications; mine are greater in number, and I have books in addition to articles. I am only trying to have this entry treated fairly and judged by actual Wiki policy, which none of you deletes seems to want to try to make an effort to apply. I would appreciate a little fairness here.
      • Your google hits are almost entirely links to comments made by you on blogs, or responses to comments made by you on blogs. For instance, the number of hits drops by 6,000 if you take out the domains stephankinsella.com, mises.org and lewrockwell.com. Since you are prodigious in posting to the internet, that accounts for your google citations. You are not cited more than a college professor. Most college professors have better things to do with their time.Jstrummer 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I truly doubt that DickClarkMises wrote the biography on your (copyrighted noticed) website. http://stephankinsella.com/bio/bio2.php That is the material that he used to create the original article (OK, not actualy original—plagiarized). Now if he actually wrote it then I am mistaken. But I doubt that because he described it as "dump of auto-bio from stephankinsella.com)".[14] Do you still insist that he wrote it? -Willmcw 06:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is a good point. I suppose he didn't "write" it, b/c he probably borrowed heavily from my own bio. But it was done without my knowledge or participation, solely on his own. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. If he is notable enough, someone will write an appropriate article. Writting some obscure published work and losing in a bid to be elected as a judge are insufficient in my view. And I'm generally an inclusionist. Themindset 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) I will now change my vote to a weak keep. Marginal at best, I requested that he rewrite his article from a more neutral and simple perspective, and he has done so. The fact that it is an auto-biography does not sit very well with me, but he's a lawyer and he read our rules... and he does technically qualify for an article. Themindset 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Don't bother to userify, I'm sure Kinsella is quite clever enough to do it for himself. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I added a redlink of Kinsella to an article one time (and I have no particular ulterior agenda or ties to Kinsella). He is fairly notable as a libertarian legal theorist and commentator. - Nat Krause 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity problems. If a neutral party does a complete rewrite, will reconsider. Xoloz 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Google returns 19,000 hits for "Stephan Kinsella" [15]. --Edcolins 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind and prefer to abstain. I can't find google hits on renowned sources of information. I am not sure about whether this article should be kept. And I don't like someone creating an article about himself. --Edcolins 08:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • His google hits are almost entirely links to blog comments he's made. These are not google hits on par with a legitimate scholar who might be cited for published academic work. These are the google hits of a guy who spends 10 hours a day on the internet posting on blogs. Look how many times he's posted to wikipedia, and the energy he's spent on reposting his bio.Jstrummer 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)#
• Speedy delete - valid vfd previously. Go to WP:VFU for undeletion. Dunc|☺ 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Oh yes, WP:POINT Dunc|☺ 12:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Commnet I've undeleted it since people for some reason think that it ought not to have been, despite it not being passed through WP:VFU and being a vanity page. I still stand by my decision to delete it. Dunc|☺ 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the undeletion. Let's see the outcome of the vote. --Edcolins 13:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:VAIN says that "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is", and WP:AUTO says that autobiographies should not necessarily be deleted, either. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The newbie instructions also say "do not write an article about yourself]], so what exactly is your point? Radiant_>|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not following newbie instructions by itself is not a criterion for deletion. - Nat Krause 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Who you callin' a Newbie, boy? I have put up 3 or 4 new entries. How many do YOU have! :) Wikihugs, Stephan Kinsella 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this vanity as previously deleted material. --Allen3 ^talk 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a new version of a page that was deleted before (and it was deleted, I might add, with only four votes to delete). It is not previously deleted material. Get your story straight. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a substantially identical reinstatement of an article deleted by valid VFD consensus, and therefore speedily deletable. Read policy before citing it. Radiant_>|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not substantially identical. It is a different article about the same subject. Refer to this comparison. - Nat Krause 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete - it's still vanity, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Vanity, non-notable. Only [22 hits in Google Groups] which I like to use as a touchstone because USENET tends to be less affected by deliberate promotion than the Web. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst I'm merely observing this debate, I should point out that you spelt the subject's name incorrectly in your search. Also, Google isn't fooled that easily either. Click forward through a few pages of hits (by jumping e.g. 10 pages at a time) and Google will truncate the search to the 'unique' results like this. Note the message from Google at the bottom. As an aside, I'm not sure that specifically searching with an engine that avoids any kind of media/literature search is particularly useful for establishing notability or not. Without commenting on this article, I would suggest that your 22 hits just shows that there are 22 references to him in usenet groups and the like; that doesn't cover any of the more useful outlets at all. There may or may not be anything more notable turned up in a proper Google, but the groups search doesn't even admit the possibility. I find the truncation that Google does to be quite useful. -Splash 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies, 55 hits for Stephan Kinsella. No change in my vote. Generally speaking for most topics a Google Groups search consistently returns around 1/10 to 1/4 as many hits as a Web search. However, many sites engage in deliberate "search engine optimization" or other self-promotional activities. Few people don't bother to Astroturf or otherwise do anything to inflate their Groups count. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • A search of ABI/Inform Global and Proquest Research Library, restricting search to "scholarly journals," turns up only one publication, and Kinsella is not the senior author: "The second paradox of blackmail Walter Block, N Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Business Ethics Quarterly. Chicago: Jul 2000. Vol. 10, Iss. 3; p. 593" With an unrestricted search, there is only one additional hit, "Symposium: Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property? Ilana Mercer, N Stephan Kinsella, James DeLong. Insight on the News. Washington: May 21, 2001. Vol. 17, Iss. 19; p. 40 (4 pages)" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • You are uninformed. See the lists of my legal publications, and libertarian publications. A quick glance reveals I have articles in several scholarly publications, including several law reviews, all of which are "scholarly"--e.g., New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law; Louisiana Law Review; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; St. Mary's Law Journal, one forthcoming in Southern University Law Journal, and others. And also some in other various scholarly or trade legal journals, such as: Philadelphia Lawyer, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, Texas Oil & Gas Law Journal, The Licensing Journal, Intellectual Property Today, The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia], and Pennsylvania Lawyer.

• Not to mention two legal treatises I have authored, and three others I serve as editor for, all published by the respected New York international law publisher Oceana Publications.
• As for libertarian fora, these include scholarly journals such as Journal of Libertarian Studies (of which I served as book review editor for 5 years), Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and Reason Papers, not to mention publications such as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, etc.
• My publication record clearly exceed those specifed under the notability criteria for bios. --Nskinsella 19:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Take it up with Proquest. I didn't decide which journals they consider important enough to index. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, take it up with proquest. These are not scholarly publications. "New York Law School Journal of..." that's hardly the NYU Law Review. Maybe you could count the Louisiana Law Review. I'll give you that citation, although that is hardly the sign of a "leading" theorist of any sort. Jstrummer 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject has enough publications that someone might want to know more about this author and turn to Wikipedia for the information. Although it's an autobio, most of it seems verifiable, and we can remove the puffery, as we would with any non-autobio article. (I've seen worse in articles that clearly weren't vanity.) That it was already VfD'd once is certainly a concern. We don't want to be debating the same articles over and over. In this case, however, the new listing has attracted many more responses than the original did, so I think it's a valid occasion for revisiting the former decision. JamesMLane 17:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, slightly reluctantly, although the notability of being Andrew Gilligan's secret twin brother is quite high, it is not clear to me whether this subject is notable enough. However the damage caused by such an article being present is minimal, unless it's leading to creeping (ultra) inclusionism. Rich Farmbrough 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this seems to be a verifible article about an at least marginally notable person. If it is NPOV, then it can be edited. DES 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to marginal notability. Issues of vanity can be corrected through the editing process. Hall Monitor 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep: Putting the bruhaha aside for a moment, this article should be kept, especially if you consider the subject's notability in comparison to the many marginal and trivial Wikibios. Ombudsman 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not-notable enough for inclusion, just a lawyer with some minor legal articles. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 00:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "minor" articles? I don't agree with this; I have made significant impact in libertarian legal theory, and have published in many respected scholarly journals. As someone ELSE wrote on my entry,

... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [16] and Williamson Evers's [17] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [18]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [19]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [20]). Kinsella advances a "discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel (A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).

I have also authored two legal treatises on international law--hardly "minor" articles; and am editor of 4 other legal treatises. Also, please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose?

In any event, if you still vote maintain your delete vote, applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote have to against Tom G. Palmer, for the same reasons, which apply even moreso to his case? --Stephan Kinsella 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Funny. I have thrown away any number of offers to include me in SELF-PROMOTIONAL "Who's Who" books, and turn them DOWN--and now this has me accused of being self-promotional. Ridiculous. Anyway, try a google search for "Stephan Kinsella"; or Martindale. Nskinsella 01:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Martindale is a directory of lawyers, not an encyclopedia or biographical database, and it contains listings for over a million lawyers. Surely not all of them deserve an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 01:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • True. What do you think Who's Who is? Do you think everyone there deserves encyclopedic entry? You do not answer my point: that you are in effect penalizing me wiht the "self-promotion" critique because I did not engage in enough self-promotion earlier in response to all those dumb Who's Who offers. Nskinsella 03:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • • You are not being penalized. An encyclopedia article is not a reward or something you deserve or have a right to. And no, I do not think that an entry in Who's Who should automatically get you an encyclopedia entry here, but it's a damn sight more notable than appearing in a directory of over a million lawyers. I'm assuming you are referring to my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom G. Palmer where I noted Palmer had a WW entry. That was not my only reason for voting a weak keep, nor should such an entry be the sole reason for inclusion. My opinion was also swayed by both the content of the article and the posted opinions of other Wikipedia editors I respect. Also note that WW was hardly the only biographical database I search. Here is an unformatted list of all the databases in which you also do not appear. Gamaliel 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, definitely. I know from personal experience that Mr. Kinsella is very well-known in libertarian/Austrian circles. --zenohockey 03:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that this list and this list show notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You have 2 identical links. I think you meant to link to my libertarian page too: libertarian publications. Nskinsella 03:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is correct. I might note that we refer to him in Intellectual property and Libertarian theories of law! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Also in Patent_attorney (which listing as a notable patent attorney I disagree with, BTW); and in Discourse_ethics (which, admittedly, I added).
• Comment A recent message from User:Nskinsella let me to check his contributions and I notice that this user appears to be systematically lobbying everyone who voted for deletion here. Generally he seems to be suggesting that the Stephan Kinsella article should be kept because the Tom G. Palmer is worse. I've responded to this on his talk page. I know of no rule against lobbying VfD participants, but I for one don't much like it. Discussion of the deletion of the Stephan Kinsella article should take place here. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not true. I have noticed some people who voted to delete my entry are applying other standards elsewhere so I have merely asked that they make sure their standards are consistent and fair. That is all. If someone in good faith votes to delete my entry I have no problem with this. Strangely, however, I have noticed that NONE of the "delete" voters have even made an attempt to justify their decision based on Wiki's own criteria for bios; as I have shown, by those standards, my entry is permissible. No one has even attempted to contradict me on this. Sad. Stephan Kinsella 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Stephan is obviously making a WP:POINT. An important difference between his article and Palmer's is that the latter isn't self-written. Also it seems that Palmer simply has a greater claim to notability. Creating your own article out of disagreement with a deletion is poor form. Wanting an article deleted because your own may be deleted is similarly poor form. Radiant_>|< 21:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• With regard to criteria... all right. Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a guideline, not a firm policy; it is a set of suggestions on how to look at biographies. The main section says that biographies meeting some criteria may be included, not that they must be. I happen to like the Google test, one of the criteria mentioned in the article. My own vote was originally based on an application of a variation of the Google test, using Google Groups. I then confirmed my impression using a Proquest search. I am now about to do a third: I personally regard a person as notable if they have written a book with an Amazon sale rank number that is less than (i.e. higher ranked than) 200,000. I do not know how this test will turn out. I believe by the way that this is a weaker criterion than "sales over 5,000." If Amazon shows that Stephan Kinsella has written a book with a sales rank number under 200,000 I will change my vote to "keep." Here we go:

• Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk by Paul E. Comeaux, N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379213710 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,849,346 in Books
• International Investment, Political Risk, And Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. by N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379215225 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,236 in Books
• Online Contract Formation, N. Stephan Kinsella (Editor), Andrew F. Simpson (Editor), ISBN 0379215195 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,235 in Books
• A Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, N. Stephan Kinsella, ASIN B0006QKZCG, out of print (no sales rank given)
• Digest of Commercial Laws of the World, N. Stephan Kinsella (ed), no sales rank given

In interpreting these sales ranks: I happen to know of a particular book that has sold less than fifty copies and has an Amazon sales rank of #785,746.

My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note that Amazon sales ranks depend strongly on recency of sales. a bookm that has sold fewer copiees, but sold them more recently will generally have a lower (better) rank. The ranks are really not meaningful until you are dealing with books currently sellign well -- then they may be used to compare how well. Also they only record online sales, and are thus subject to systematic bias against books disproportionaly sold directly. I think you can get actual sales figures fromw Bowker (the people who maintain the Books in Print database) that are much more accurate, and give actual numbers of books sold, not a "rank", but I don't know exactly how to do this. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you, and thanks. The Civil Law dictionary is a mistake by Amazon; it's not even a book. I tried to get them to fix it but they won't. I have an article by that title. Someone at Amazon is confused. The other books are expensive, specialty books. They hardly ever sell on Amazon; almost all of them are bought directly from the 50 year old publisher Oceana, which has an established catalog and direct mail and online presence. Digest is a 6 volume set so has less than 5000 sales. I am not sure of the sales of Online Contract Formation, but I think it's less than 5000 so far; but it was jsut releated last year. However, the International Investment book IS BEING RELEASED NEXT MONTH so there are no sales yet (though there are over 1000 pre-orders). The book it's replacing is the 1997 book, on Protecting Foreign Invesmtment. Its sales have petered of in last 2 years b/c the new book is coming out and b/c it's dated, but that book did have well over 5000 sales, and I can get a letter from Oceana to prove it if you want. MOroever, the criteria say articles in publications w/ more than 5000 subscribers, and several of mine have that. The Freeman for one, and probably some of the law reviews. Stephan Kinsella 00:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable enough, Wikipedia is not bound by paper restraints. Rangerdude 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As per Gamaliel. The article contributes absolutely nothing to human knowledge. Arrogant, deluded vanity. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not an outlet to be used by non-notable lawyers for self-promotion ("hey, he must be good... he's even featured on wikipedia!"). It should also be speedied as a previously deleted article. If he was that notable then someone other than him or his department would have created the article. The JPS 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks The JPS. Duncharris, I think, already tried to speedy delete it, but it was decided that was not appropriate, due to the large number of discussions and the spare number for the first delete. So it was decided to let this process play out, to see what consensus emerges. Stephan Kinsella 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• • As to being speedy deleted, WP:CSD criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (bold added). I gather that this article is not substantially identical to the previous version even if it is on the same subject. Thus it is not subject to speedy deleteion under this criterion. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Dubious keep. Seems like vanity, but somewhat notable. Especially when you consider that we have articles on far less notable actors, singers, heads of organizations, authors, etc--the distinction being that it is doubtful that the parties themselves or their surrogates wrote them. Mmmbeer 19:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As a lawyer, I suggest that he's only notable for the size of his ego. Why is he so desperate to have a Wikipedia article about him? 66.9.126.26 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My original vote was deleted from this page. This is a vanity page, and Kinsella admits he wrote it himself. If you delete it, he's going to repost it as Stephan Kinsella 3, anyway. But it should be deleted anyway. Also, nearly all of the "keep" votes are sockpuppetish, or, I suspect, people on mailing lists that Stephan Kinsella has urged to vote for him. Virtually no libertarian knows who this guy is, except for a small band of people in Alabama. He's not cited in any serious academic articles. He's not published in any serious academic journals. He's just some lawyer guy who has a gigantic ego and a lot of free time to play around on the internet. Look how many times he comments on others' votes. Does this seem like the work of a leading intellectual, or a crackpot looking for net.notoriety? Jstrummer.

• Again--I didn't delete you, or anyone. Your charges of "crackpot" are over the line. Stephan Kinsella 05:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, your post was never deleted. But at som point Galadriel (sp?) moved it to the bottom of the page--clearly you are a newbie, probably signed on recently on behalf of Tom Palmer just to attack Rockwell and Mises sites. Just a guess. A troll, IOW. Stephan Kinsella 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any delete of any votes; I certainly did not do this. There are not sockpuppets as far as I know. You are wrong about other libertarians not knowing me. This is just factually incorrect. You have not seen the correspondence I have gotten over the years from all over the states and increasingly, from around the world, as more of my articles get translated. I have published in serious academic journals. This is not boasting. It is just a fact and a correction of your misstatement. You are also wrong about my ego being gigantic. You are wrong, and do not know me. My ego is normal sized. Stephan Kinsella 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Stephan: I have been in the mainstream libertarian movement for 10 years. I've met every notable libertarian academic in the U.S., and many foreign ones. I have also met you. I have met and had discussions with nearly every important libertarian legal theorist from Epstein, to Posner, to Volokh, to Barnett, to Post, and so on. Not once has your name been mentioned by ANY one of them, even when we've talked about IP law. It's very likely that not ONE of them knows who you are, although I wouldn't know for sure since your name doesn't come up. You are not cited by them. You are not invited to conferences hosted by or attended by them. You haven't taught at any particularly impressive schools, or published in any respectable academic journals. You may be a fine practicing attorney - I would not know - but you do not qualify as a libertarian thinker, if by you mean "taken seriously by others." What's more, my vote was deleted. And that's annoying. Jstrummer.

I'm sorry, but by what criterion are you defining "respectable academic journals"? It seems to be an arbitrary one. Others have already listed journal articles has Kinsella has published. And I find your assertion that you have met "every notable libertarian academic in the US" laughable. It sounds to me that you have such a monster ego that if you have not gained personal audience with a "thinker" than you refuse to allow them to be referred to as notable. I have been in the "mainstream libertarian movement" for five years, and I HAVE heard of him. Maybe you should read more, so you could open your eyes to the notable libertarians that you haven't had a beer with.

Also, I am curious: Which "Barnett" are you referring to to? Bill Barnett, Andy Barnett, or Randy Barnett? All are published Libertarian thinkers. DickClarkMises 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I will change my vote to KEEP if the page says: "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property lawyer living in Houston, Texas who has published on paleolibertarian legal theory and is an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute." Then the page isn't vanity, it's truthful, and it's about all that Stephan deserves, if anything, on Wikipedia. Otherwise, my vote remains DELETE.

• Comment Off-topic comment and following discussion regarding a barnstar I gave Kinsella has been moved to my Talk page
• Über keep to counteract all the other strong votes. —RaD Man (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This guy does seem to be known on the internet and so what if it is only through blogs. Surely the network of blogs has already brought major stories to the attention of the world so a recognised name in this sphere must be as valid as other journalists who are on wikipedia. 82.41.214.151 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's third day of editing.

• Delete. Vanity page, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I vote to keep. This article is an example of what I want to find in a Wikipedia article. As a libertarian (with no association with Shephan Kinsella) I value this article as a noncommercial document that provides information I find educational. In reviewing the other votes for deletion I find many votes citing what I see as a weak reason (vanity or non-notable) outweighed by by what I believe is the reason Wikipedia or any encyclopedia article should exist: to provide useful information in context. It seems to me that if I find the article useful, that is a valid counter to the claim of non-notable. Thane Eichenauer 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• User's first edit.

• I gladly admit that this is my first logged in edit to Wikipedia and my second edit ever. I have made only one previous edit and until today did not feel ready to take the step of creating an account for that one edit Special:Contributions/24.251.22.90. Thane Eichenauer 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The average law professor has a longer and more substantial list of publications, as do average (even below average) academics in many fields. Anyone who can run behind a Green Party candidate in a statewide election in Texas is a very, very minor character. (Texas judicial elections are complicated; his vote total fell between that for the Green candidate running directly for the same court seat he was and that of another Green candidate running for the same court.) Judge Magney 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Judge. But I don't know why you are equating electoral success with notability. Especially when someone does his best not to win. You might enjoy his interview in a laser industry trade magazine. Some found it humorous. But then, I get the impression many around here are Seriosos with no sense of humor. I think you are totally wrong about comparing my writing to that of typical law profs. But then, to each his own. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not equate electoral success with notability. I did imply that a candidate like yourself who is so resoundingly ignored by the electorate is likely to be non-noteworthy. Judge Magney 13:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We have articles on equally undistinguished people who are Wikipedians. Grace Note 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's irrelevant. We are considering this article. If the existence of inappropriate articles in Wikipedia was considered to justify the addition of more inappropriate articles, we'd have a rapid "race to the bottom." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What's the big deal? His entry ain't so bad, he has written books, and the von Mises Institute is a real place.--Cberlet 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yo, are you Chip Berlet? Interesting. The SPLC guy? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Biography of a person alive with multiple book publications.. it seems as if he is probably notable enough for inclusion, and that this is not merely vanity. --J. Hess 02:47, 1 August 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). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Discuss this result on the talk page

[edit] Religious persecution by Jews

• A confused work of pure original research created for WP:POINT. 95% of it deals with actions of the ancient Israelite tribes over 3500 years ago; describing them as Jews is dubious at best, and the "historical source document" for the actions listed (the Old Testament) is considered even more dubious by most modern historians. As well, it throws in one sentence asserting that the Arab-Israeli conflict may (or may not be) an example of "religious persecution by Jews", ignoring the more obvious ethnic underpinnings of the conflict. No credible sources have been brought which assert that any of this is actually "religious persecution by Jews"; it seems to be another back-door attempt to revive the "Jewish ethnocentrism" topic using a novel approach; articles on that topic have already been deleted via two VfDs: [21] [22] Perhaps there is an article that could be written about this topic, though it's not clear exactly what it would be referring to, but this article certainly isn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article, like the articles on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians covers a very real and very notable topic. These articles are intended to be the first three of a series of articles covering outgroup religious persecutions committed by members of the world's religious/spiritual groups. So far all the contributors to these pieces have shown themselves willing to withdraw or source material that others request be sourced. I agree, of course, that these articles are likely to attract POV warriors. But this is not grounds for preemptively destroying the articles. If you have particular complaints, please make them on the Talk pages so that they can be addressed. Don't just impulsively go a VfD. Also, I suggest that this might as well be a VfD on all three of them, and on the other planned additions to this series, since each of the articles in the series covers equivalent topics. I think it would be a shame if this new series were deleted out of wikicowardice and unwillingness to protect Wikipedia from the POV mosquitoes who will be attracted to these articles. Babajobu 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You comments do not deal with any of the issues I raised. Please focus on them. Oh, and providing a source does not help at all with the Original Research problem, unless the source itself also asserts that the information provided is an example of Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm absolutely flummoxed by your claim that this is original research. Please help. I guess I'm slow. I quite literally do not understand what you mean when you say that it is original research to state that the Bible claims that Jews, qua Jews, committed acts of violence against non-Jews. Take a look at my Wikipedia edit history and see whether you think I am acting out of the anti-Jewish agenda you suspect has motivated this article. Babajobu 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review the Wikipedia:No original research article; the "Religious persecution by Jews" article asserts that there is such a phenomenon as "Religious persecution by Jews", and that actions by the ancient Israelite tribes constitute examples of the same. This is a novel thesis which needs to be supported by citeable sources. Considering that the Bible is not considered a particularly reliable historical source, and that the Bible nowhere says the incidents mentioned were done by Jews (but rather by Israelites), the whole article is questionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh incidentally, the Bible repeatedly describes these events as being committed by "Yehudim" (Yud-heh-dalet-mem), then and now the Hebrew word for "Jews". I think what you are trying to say is that the Torah (pentateuch) describes only Israelites, but the transition to "Jews" is made at some point in the Nevi'im. Not that any of this will influence any votes on the VfD, which is fueled by more, uh, primal concerns. Babajobu 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would posit that drawing a connection between ancient Israelites and modern day Jews is not a "novel thesis". Certainly members of every synagogue on the planet would be startled to learn that this is a novel thesis, as would anyone who has glanced at any primary or secondary source covering 2300 years of post-Tanakh Jewish theology or Jewish history. "Moses was a Jew" is not an outlandish assertion, though it certainly can stand for scholarly qualifications. Anyway, why did you not raise these concerns on the Talk Page? Why did you go straight to VfD? And yes, you did speculate on the motivations of the contributors, by speculating that the article was an attempt to revive some already deleted article that none of us had actually heard of. Babajobu 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's not a "novel thesis", then please present a scholarly source which asserts that the alleged actions of the ancient Israelites are examples of "Religious persecution by Jews". I went straight to VfD because this article was an obvious candidate for deletion. And I did not speculate about motives, but rather about actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, please do your best to focus on the article rather than indulging in idle (and innacurate) speculation about the motives of the contributors. Thanks so much. Babajobu 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't speculated about any motivations at all. I've discussed apparent actions, not motivations. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and add some sort of "religious persecution series" template to every one of these RP pages. Or maybe just a Man's Inhumanity template? — RJH 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding the template is vital. How does one create a template? Babajobu 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was unaware of those two previous VFD that Jayjg highlighted, but they are irrelevent anyway. This is one part of a proposed series on Religous Persecution, a series I did not start. As for them being Jewish, a quick look at the Jew article tells me "The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith...." This is the first time I've heard a Jewish person tell me that Moses was not a "Follower of the jewish faith", I woul have thought he wrote the book on the Jewish faith. In all honesty this VFD seems to me to be more about making a point than a genuine reason to delete the article, frankly I would have liked Jayjgs help with this piece. But Consensus is Consensus, and we'll see how this goes. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, yes, you did start the series. No series existed until you put your nose to the grindstone and willed into creation a series you clearly wanted to see. And I'm glad you did, I think it has the potential to be a fantastic series. Babajobu 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV personal essay full of original research with no sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you guys regurgitate this tripe?? The article has an inline sourcing for every important assertion!!! "No sources"!!! Unbelievable! Babajobu 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    You can't rely on the Bible as your sole source. You'd need scholarly sources for an article like this. And please don't call people's comments "tripe." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree that the great weakness of the Bible as a source must be prominently mentioned. But providing inline verbatim citation from the most frequently cited source in human history is not the same as providing "no sources"! I'm sorry for calling your comments "tripe". That was wrong. Babajobu 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• (user has less than 50 edits, but who gives a flying fuck unless you're making ad hominem attacks) Strong Delete - Bad enough we deal with anti-Semitism in real life, this is pure nonsense and has no place in a decent encyclopedia.Existentializer 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article's contributors have inadvertantly added spurious, malicious material that qualifies as anti-semitic, please help us purge it. If you find any Islamophobic material in the Religious persecution by Muslims article, which has the same contributors as this VfD'd article and which includes prominent discussion of Muslim massacres of Jews, please help us purge that material as well. Nobody is trying to offend anyone. Babajobu 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but this article is irredeemable. The various editors who have "contributed" to it (most notably IrishPunkTom) have not seen it as a decent article but an excuse to engage in Jew-bashing. Leave it, and it will probably remain in the same state as any other article that is targeted by Wikipedia's Islamic population. No, I'd rather delete it and not give them the temptation. We've already got enough trouble with articles like Jihad and Islam to deal with.Existentializer 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • A targeted personal attack on me, and a whiff of Islamophobia, colour me surprised. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No merits. The record in the Bible, even if correct, cannot be termed "religious persecution" - it certainly was not by the standard of those times. The Biblical record is not a "hard source" for most readers, and should not be used as such. As for modern-day Israel, the so-called "religious persecution" is not the result of the perpetrators being Jews but Israelis. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most "religious persecutions" cited as examples were military actions and were not perpetrated because of the recipients' religion. I removed those. JFW | T@lk 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - for several reasons. 1) The evidence presented is very weak and makes the assumption that biblical literature can be used as historical sources, an assumption that would be met with harsh opposition if it were made anywhere else, e.g., the status of the West Bank and Gaza; 2) the title begs the question, namely that Jews (in some timeless sense) are guilty of religious persecution; 3) it makes a strained point that the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow is grounded in Jewish religious persecution. I certainly agree that point #2 also applies to articles about "Christian" and "Moslem" persecution as well, but this article - as often is the case in this area - appears to have a hidden agenda. If someone wants to make the point that societies in biblical times were religiously intolerant, that should make a separate article. --Leifern 19:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • I wish people would stop with the panicky speculations about "hidden agendas". I don't want to reveal too much about my real world identity here, but suffice it to say that anyone who knows me would find comical (or just nonsensical) the idea that I had been tagged as having a sinister, anti-semitic agenda. Well, what can one do. The article, and the whole series, could have been very good. I contributed more to the Religious persecution by Muslims than to this one, but still I think they all had potential. But I don't want to waste my Wikipedia time contributing to articles that paranoid folks will preemptively VfD and dog with their unfounded anxieties. I'm giving up on the "religious persecution" articles. I'll stick to uncontroversial topics. Have your way with it, paranoid deletionists. Ciao. Babajobu 19:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or move. The original nominator had problems with it being considered Jewish, but that's not a reason for deletion. And whether the bible is historical or not is irrelavent, the bible is still extrememly notable and hence information in it is by definition notable. Stick a {{NPOV}} is u like, but don't see any reason for deletion. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had problems with it being pure original research; the fact that it uses the Bible as a historical source and equates the actions of ancient Israelites with Jews is a symptom of that problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I agree with most of the comments above by those urging deletion. The State of Israel is a haven of religious tolerance compared with neighbouring countries. RachelBrown 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How in God's name does that justify a "delete"?? Compared to Saudi Arabia, Syria is a haven of religious tolerance. Does that mean that an article asserting that religious persecution takes place in Syria would warrant a deletion??? Of course not, Syria is rife with religious persecution just like every other country in the region!! I'm sorry, but the supporting arguments for the delete votes are absolute blather!! But you POV wolves can take the whole series and delete it to your POV hearts' content. Babajobu 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Kindly get off of your high horse:
      1. If you hit a bee hive, you will get stung. You hit one here.
      2. Most of what you wrote above is valid, but the part starting with "I'm sorry" is not needed.
      3. You have so far failed to produce a scolarly article on the topic. See my vote just below.
• Keep but cleanup, otherwise delete - The topic is valid, but the article as written is a poorly researched anti-semetic rant. Specific book-chapter-verse must be cited for biblical qoutes. Appropriate sources must also be cited for documenting the Arab exodus at the inception of Israel and why it is listed. Other incidents such as those noted in "A History of the Jews" are missing. Also, the use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" must be avoided. The facts can speak for themselves. We Jews have not been angels, but we have not been Nazis either. --EMS | Talk 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • EMS, in most other topics that were in this condition I'd probably agree with you that "keep and clean up" would be a good vote. Unfortunately, from my recent experiences and looking back at the history of articles like Jihad I'm pretty sure that this article cannot be redeemed. The moment anyone tries to do so, expect the POV warriors from those articles (and I'll note that one of the worst offenders, IrishPunkTom, frequents both) to come running for a chance to bash Jews.Existentializer 20:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks for that Personal attack. You will of course note that I have edited the noted Jihad article less than once. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree that putting terms like "ethnic cleansing" in these articles does nothing but fan POV flames, and should be avoided. I agree with you that cleanup and improved citations are needed. On the other hand, I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant. The biblical quotes are cited "book-chapter-verse". I agree that the discussion of the dislocation of Palestinians must include other arguments and explanations for this dislocation, just as I have tried to solicit Muslim explanations for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza at the Religious persecution by Muslims article. That article is no more Islamophobic than this article is antisemitic. Babajobu 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The article on the book of joshua uses the word genocide, and I thought, perhaps unwisely, that Ethnic Cleansing was less POV-laden and more Flame-resistant than genocide. Also, it did originally cite specific Verse, Chapter and book but these were edited away by another--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Babajobu wrote:

I disagree that, as it exists, it is either anti-semitic or a rant.

I do not believe that this was the intent, but it sure is the effect. For example, you use Ethnic cleansing as a header instead of Palestinian exodus and Biblical incidents. Compare this article with what you did for Religious persecution by Muslims, which is much more broad and where the headers have no inflamatory POV.

However, I repeat that your worst offense is that you do not know the material. Since we Jews have for most part had little opportunity to perseucte over the last 2500 years it is a somewhat sparse record, but it does exist and you have barely scratched its surface. For example, there was a forced conversion episode during the Maccabean period that is famous amongst Jewish scolars, but which you are apparently quite ignorant of. You need to settle down, do your research, and produce a product that is at least as concise and comprehensive as Religious persecution by Muslims is.

If this gets deleted, I encourage you to try again later, once you can produce a product on a par with Religious persecution by Muslims. Note that Religious persecution by Muslims has not been marked for deletion. Nor has Religious persecution by Christians, but that is stub anyway. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

EMS, thanks for that comment, it was appreciated. I had only barely began the piece and my intention was to start at the prophets work my way through history and end up at Present-Day israel. The Palestinian Exodus was edited in, I had said that Critics of israel claim that the foundation of the state ofd Israel was an attempt at Ethnic Cleansing, And that is a point I've eard made many times over, I then noted that rougly One-Fifth of the current population is Arab, which substantially disproves that, I would have thought. I appealed for help from Jayjg_{See his talk page}, but he just VFD'ed it. I do, or rather did, need help with this, I don't claim to be an expert of the history of the jewish people throughout the lands, and if this article stays (Which looks unlikely) then I will still appeal for help. The more specificly Jewish editors involved hen the better, surely, this will be. If it gets removed I'll be requesting Religious persecution by Christians get taken off too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly counsel you to keep what you can. This is a valid topic. However it is also a sensitive topic. To do this properly, the article has to be thorough, well documented, well written, and with a genuinely neutral POV. It has to be a calm, collected, organized recitation of the relevant facts and incidents. As a found it yesterday, it was a hearsay filled diatribe screaming that Jews engage in "ethnic cleansing". Even with my edits, it still fails to do this topic justice in any way, shape or form. I repeat to you what I have said to Babajobu: Do the research and do the work needed to do this properly. In your case I also add in a strong warning: The offensive headings seem to be your doing. Keep that up and this topic will never survive a Vfd vote. --EMS | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Thats fair enough, Your edits read well. The article was a Stub, it was no-where near complete I wanted more Editors involved on all the proposed series.. Oh well. I'm not going to touch another Jewish-Related subject again. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be very nice if you made good that promise.
I thank you for liking my edits, but you do not seem to be very interested in defending them. Because of that lack my vote is now "strong delete".
I hope that someone will revive this article in the future, but it must be someone who can and will do a good job with it. There are a lot of votes to keep this article because it can be used for Jew-bashing and a lot of votes against it for the same reason. In the middle is a core vote that dislikes it because it is just plain a poor article. A good article will have the approval of that core and will therefore survive a Vfd effot. It's too bad that you could help to create such an article, or even be bothered to defend an improvement (however inadequate) of this one. --EMS | Talk 01:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• New vote: Delete or reduce to a stub. This is a poor attempt to document a legitimate subject. The author shows that he can do better in Religious persecution by Muslims. This article needs and deserves at least that much better. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I updated the article last night, revising the headings but keeping the content. Those changes seem to be sticking. This article now looks and reads better, but still is an very inadequate treatment of a highly sensitive topic. I regretfully maintain my vote as listed just above. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Final vote: Strong Delete. The edit war finally started over my revisions. None of the other editors cared to support them (although only one other editor opposed them). Without a community of editors dedicated to doing the truth in a NPOV manner and to defending both the truth and the NPOV, this cannot succeed. No such community exists at this time. It is time for this article to go, and to stay gone for a while. --EMS | Talk 01:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • EMS, I agree with everything you say about this being a sensitive subject and requiring copious documentation and meticulous wording. I disagree that I'm ignorant of this material: see my talkpage discussion with Eliezer on the debate within the Gemarrah on dealing with female POWs. And my knowledge of Jewish history is pretty solid. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to get the article going, and apologize for not, as it turns out, having the time to work on these articles, as I'd hoped to. Hopefully in the future we can give it another go. Babajobu 13:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the Bible is not a historical source. If the crimes alleged to have been committed by the Israelites are true, I doubt it had much to do with religion other than land or resources. Revolución 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . --TheMidnighters 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Shalom l'koolam. Why don't all the delete voters help me out with my new Adi Barkan article. Why not spend more time showing off the clean laundry, and less time trying to bury the dirty laundry? Babajobu 22:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I get the feeling some deletes are politically, rather than empirically, motivated. Themindset 22:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And I get the feeling that some keeps are politically motivated. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per reason stated above and because this article have little in common, if any, with religious persecution. MathKnight 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless solid sources can be provided. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discussion of religious persecution should go in the religious persecution article. Allowing separate articles making allegations against specific ethnic or religious groups is inherently POV. Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per Jayjg and MathKnight.--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historical citations. Appears to be original research to support both antisemitic and anti-Zionist views. (Note, the two are not the same -- but this particular instance favors both.) To be acceptable, this article needs to be revised on the basis of citations from works of history; works of political advocacy need not apply. --FOo 01:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Low content, no reputable sources. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm delighted to learn that Moses was not Jewish. I'm not so delighted that some editors simply want to suppress any and all articles that discuss Jews and or Israelis with less than fulsome praise. Grace Note 04:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "less than fulsome praise"? You must be kidding. WP is full of articles and everyday attempts to blame "the Jews". Need examples? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and I could just go on and on.... func(talk) 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand. Provides NPOV by other articles at links. Peter Ellis 05:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Current article is fairly useless, topic is valid. There may be meta-objections to the "Persecution by..." series (POV magnet, etc.), but one VfD is not the place to raise them. Xoloz 05:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in the sense of merge with Anti-semitism (and then rename to something suitable). Definitely needs cleanup and expanding though. ~~~~ 07:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your vote please? I don't get how and why persecutions by Jews be merged with persecutions of Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically religious persecution, as a title, is noteworthy and NPOV. But neither of the above articles are. ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • So why do you vote to Keep this one, and Delete the other? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I note with some interest that you've voted to delete Religious persecution by Muslims article; in fact, you nominated it for deletion. Could you possibly explain this seeming inconsistency? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Xoloz. JamesBurns 08:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: just as the article on Anti-Semitism does not list Pharaoh, Haman, Amalekites, etc., so we should not base allegations of "religious persecutions by Jews" based solely on Biblical account: this is not a Biblepedia. The inclusion of today's Israel is especially insidious and clearly show someone's political agenda. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Muslims. Axon 10:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOR, WP:POV. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I can conceive of no reason for this article other than to stir up trouble. And for the benefit of the sarcastic person who didn't realise Moses wasn't Jewish, of course he wasn't - the concept of Jews at that time (as opposed to Israelites) is an anachronism. Poetlister 12:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• (user has less than 50 edits) Strong delete - I was actually going to cast an "ambivalent" vote until I took a look at the page's history. It's obvious this page was not created in good faith and is instead being used as an excuse for Jew-bashing.Ni-ju-Ichi 13:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ni-ju-Ichi, are you really a Sock-Puppet of Enviroknot, or is that some sort of Joke I don't Get? - Anyway, how, and please be exact, from viewing the history of this piece did you arrive at the conclusion that "this page was not created in good faith" ? --Irishpunktom\^talk;; 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • That'll be enough of that, IrishPunkTom. Going around making needless accusations of sockpuppetry is ridiculous. I have not seen any evidence of any sockpuppets around here, save perhaps for the theory that YOU might be the anonymous IP vandal who plagued the Jihad] article yesterday. As far as evidence, I'd say that your creation of the piece is strong enough evidence at the start that the article wasn't intended to be here for any other reason than Jew-bashing, because you've got a long history of doing just that. The continual attempts by editors (both yourself and others) to insert Jew-bashing comments into the article is all the confirmation I need, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way about this article as evidenced by the numerous deletion comments stating exactly that. Existentializer 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Firstly, if you viewed Ni-ju-Ichi's User page you would know what i was talking about; The comment was directed their way. Your "Theory" that I'm vandalising an article I've never edited borders on the paranoid. I don't even know you, why the constant tirade of personal abuse directed at me. Aside from this I don't recall ever editing any article which you have also edited. What gives? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, there is no religious persecution actually cited in the article; as is alluded to but insufficiently thought through, what is in the article are two examples of ethnic cleansing, i.e., persecution on the basis of national origin, rather than religion. (See also the unending discussions of Jewish nationality vs. Jewish religion). Specifically, examples of ethnic cleansing in the Old Testament by the Hebrews (AFAIK, Jews derives from the tribe of Judah, and thus is only relevant after the division into two kingdoms), and examples of ethnic cleansing by the state of Israel (since there is no evidence of any sort of intervention by Israel and/or Jews into the worship practices of the inhabitants, and any such persecution is based on their Arabic nationality rather than their religion, and, as a thought experiment, a Jew who converted to Islam would not be subject to any such hypothetical persecution). Gzuckier 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg . Dcarrano 14:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, why's this one not alright? That "it was not created in good faith" is irrelevant, this should be voted upon empirically. Shem^(talk) 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The article is a misnomer as it cites no act of religious persecution by Jews. It cites a Biblical account of "what would today be considered ethnic cleansing" committed by pre-monarchic Israelites. It skips over the next thirty two hundred years to discuss a current ongoing political dispute, casting it in a religious light. This article was clearly created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Briangotts 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Err.. it was part of a series on Religious Descrimination by... It was not only about Jews, but thus Far contained articles about Muslims (Also up for VFD) and Christians. It was, and is, at it's embryonic stage, with intentions to Chronicle from the Biblical age to the Modern Day. The defeiniton of a jew was to include all definitions as defined by the Jew article. This article simply was not "created as a POV ranting board for people with an ax to grind" --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • So Sayth the Creator of the Article, Yea Verily, even though his own history and talk page indicate a definite bias.Existentializer 16:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • After a doublecheck, confirming: it appears that the article Religious persecution by Muslims was created by Germen, who happens to be one of IrishPunkTom's main opponents/targets, and that Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews were created largely out of spite. See the original states of the articles here and here. Add to this the fact that IrishPunkTom added links to still-not-yet-created articles like Religious persecution by Hindus, Religious persecution by Sikhs, Religious persecution by Mormons, Religious persecution by Zorostrians, Religious persecution by atheists, and Religious persecution by pagans, and I feel it is readily apparent that IrishPunkTom's creation of a "series" was merely a smokescreen for his creation of playgrounds for religious hate speech.

The article Religious Persecution by Muslims might also fit into this mold, were it not for the fact that its statements are legitimate, have relevance, and are well researched and properly sourced. See the original state of THAT article here. Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This kind of "tit for tat" article creation is usually called WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats A personal attack, and it does not assume Good faith. Existentializer, whats with the constant attacks on me.. I barely even know who you are. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is all fine and good but it requires a few things. "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions." You are a user who has a noted history of personal attacks and violations of NPOV, including a presence in constant reverting. I have read your comments throughout this talk page and your first instinct overall was not to assume good faith, but to attack those who voted for deletion. You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user on this page, a user who appears to be operating in good faith. And then there is the highly POV and un-encyclopedic content of this article and the Religious persecution by Christians article, which were OBVIOUSLY created in violation of WP:POINT.

Assume good faith does not require that I disregard common sense, and common sense tells me that you are NOT acting in good faith. If you want to claim that my statement that I, personally, believe you are not acting in good faith is a "personal attack" then you are free to do so but it is not, and I invite you to look back on the history of your own edits. It should be readily apparent from your own history why a neutral observer would have cause to question whether or not you were acting in good faith. Existentializer 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks doesn't really require too much aside from, you know, No personal attacks. The articles were not created for any "Jew-Bashing" purposes, it was created to be part of a series which was to chronicle the Religious persecution by the various major World religions and Non-religions. The one on Christians, Muslims and Jews were only the First three. The main article to which I would have contributed would have been in the Zorostrianism one. What exactly do you mean by "You made unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against another user". If you are referring to Ni-ju-Ichi then you will note that his user page contains a Sock-pupetry tag "It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of Enviroknot"; It is hardly an "unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry" to ask them if this statement was true. i don't think it's true, because the evidence is missing from the tag, but the user hasn't removed it, I thought maybe it was some sort of odd joke. Indeed, I didn't even make an accusation, I asked for clarification.. indeed, seeing this as such an accusation could be seen as further evidence of you acting in bad Faith. Your point, insidiously made, that my edit history presents a Picture of anti-Semetism, or "Jew-bashing", is either inherently incorrect or another Personal attack on me, But I'm going to assume good faith and preseume that you have made a mistake. I have no hatred of either the Jewish or Christian faiths, far from it. I do have a sever prejudice against the Orange order, Loyalist]s in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, etc, and that is exactly why I have never, not once, edited them. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Look, moron, one of your toadies (probably the "Envirofuck" vandal) vandalizes any page that isn't a toady of Islam and seems to love to add that tag to people's pages.. I don't buy it, and I've removed that fucking vandalism from Ni-ju-Ichi's page. Cut the crap and start acting in good faith.Existentializer 16:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Are you even capable of giving a civil reply? Referring to someone as a "Moron" and claiming, for whatever reason, that I have "Toadies", while amusingly stupid, is hardly "acting in good faith", and is also yet another addition to the commpendium of your Personal Attacks. Does it make you feel big when you swear ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If there's one for Christians and Muslims, then there has to be one for Jews as well. Unless people are honestly claiming that Jews have never religiously persecuted people before...Heraclius 17:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but doesn't it have to have actual instances of religious persecution by Jews in it? (see my previous discussion) Gzuckier 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This won't get a fair trial. Any time that there is an article like this which discusses factual examples of Jewish negativity, it goes for VFD because people blanket label it some Nazi POV and if not that, an Islamic POV that nobody will take seriously. Now for me, I have had many offhanded bad experiences with Jews and their attitudes but this could be because they lived in the city or because of their culture and I'm about to say it's a bit of both. There are no people on this planet with a blank check for how much damage they can do without return criticism. Those who believe the Jewish people are unable to be guilty for any significant charges, are just as wrong as any Nazi who tries to paint the White race as unfailing in kindness and decency. For instance, Jews in the media(yes, I checked names) believe it is all right to paint White culture and history in a negative light and you will only ever see Jewish culture expressed negatively by Jews. Then again, the Jews don't mind if Whites hate on themselves and speak against their people, even for the sake of propping other races up on their shoulders instead. Fox news is probably the only station that I see which steps away from the chronic anti-Gentile bias which plagues most of the other media conglomerates, but you'll probably meet a Nazi who disagrees with me on that. There is no justification for institutional prejudice by Jews and Judeophiles, any more than there is for Whites and Blacks. Of course, most here would be loathe to act bold and decisively where there is a case of potential ego dropping for the people who shove the Holocaust on Whites. For me, I find a problem with the outspoken Jews who rail on about that Holocaust as if it was all about them and not other people, with their complete sense of innocence in comparison to carving a plot of land out where the Palestinians live because the British said they could. Jews rewrite White history with Jamestown and the Wild West, while Whites cannot criticise the Mid-East conflict. It's almost like using the word Nigger/Nigga, or that only Whites owned slaves. While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan. Henry Kissinger, anybody? Can we please, get NPOV in all these persecution-related articles? TheUnforgiven 18:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good; "While the Jews in the Bush administration went after Iraq for WMDs, they neglected to mention that their famous scientists invented them in the Manhattan Project and that there was pogrom of Japan." You should definitely put that in the article as an example of religious persecution by Jews. Gzuckier 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

After plowing through that mess of horrid grammar and racist ramblings by User:TheUnforgiven, I can only say this: what a pile of racist crap. Existentializer 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, why does he say "The Jews" and "The Whites" as though they are two different entities? Aren't a high proportion of Jews white? RachelBrown 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's what they'd like you to believe. Gzuckier 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While it is currently in a very bad shape, I do believe that it has the potential to become a valid article. -Dv 20:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dv (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (48 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Incognito (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT ^talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: “Religious persecution in Israel” could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: “Religious persecution under king David's reign” or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: “Religious persecution under Judaism.” While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; “Religious persecution under Islam.” This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: “Religious persecutions by Muslims,” or even more direct: “Religious persecution by Arabs” (I'm making the comparison, because being a “Jew,” is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: “Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes.” It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 20:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more information on how "Religous persecution under Judaism" and "Religous persecution by Jews" differ, and why the former is better. Also, I for one do not see why this requires a delete instead a move of the existing article. (I support deleting the article, but that is because it is a lousy article on the subject.) I also cannot support your view of their being a lot of smaller articles. In that case, the larger scale article is still needed to pull it all together.
    I also disagree that such an article is inherently POV, but to be NPOV it has to be dry recitation of the facts, something which most of the current editors seem to be struggling with (when they are trying for it at all). --EMS | Talk 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

“Religious persecution under Judaism” report persecutions under a system, while the second directly point a finger on a group of people. If I say that Jews are idiots, it is a generalization, I directly point a finger on a group of people. On the other hand, if I say, Judaism is idiotic, I criticize a system. Jews may be offended, but I criticize one aspect of their being, rather than criticizing them as a whole, because I am criticizing an aspect of their being, rather then directly and entirely criticizing them. And also, by this statement, I am not saying in anyway that Jews are idiots. From the same logic, when I say religion is stupid, I am not necessarily saying that those that practice a religion are stupid. An encyclopedic article, to maintain an objective tone, should as much as possible, not point a finger. It should be “encyclopedicaly” correct(in allusion to politically correct).

Secondly, I did not mean to include many smaller articles, I just gave examples, to show the differences.

Thirdly, it is true that one can just change the title of the article. But just read the article, it points to some Israelite crime taken from scriptures, and then Palestine, neither of those two can stick there to find the appropriate name to include both. The first one is from an Israelite system, taken from scripture(which BTW, doesn't present the critic of it), the second one is from the Israeli regime.

Lastly, an article to respect its name in this cases, it can't be otherwise than POV. How you make that NPOV, you write “what is called religious persecution by Jews, is the persecutions by Jews against other people adhering to other religions?” Don't you see anything wrong here? The articles aim is to directly point a finger on a group of people, and not report, in a cold encyclopedic fashion the persecutions by a regime, a system etc. If you neutralize such article, you somehow disconnect it from its name. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept your argument on the semantics of the article name. However, I retain my position on NPOV. I admit that a finger is being pointed when writing on a subject such as this, but if the facts are there and properly documented, then that finger deserves to pointed. In other words, the article can be neutral without being neutralized, and need not be comfortable for the subject group while still being NPOV.
It is unfortunate that those who most wish to write on this subject are the least capable of producing an article with NPOV. As a practical matter, that is more of an issue than whether an NPOV treatment of this issue can be done.

• • • His point escapes me also. I guess this is what you get when you allow anyone to vote (except me, because I have too few edits apparently). -Dv 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What you propose, a dictatorial regime, in which, there is no votes prior a decision? Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes! Delete as soon as possible. It is clearly original research and shows no knowledge of a huge amount of historical research, about both Jewish history and about the composition of the Bible. Its use of the word "religion" itself is anachronistic. Israeli policy on the occupied territories is something worth analyzing, in all of its complexities (which does not mean "defending" it). But that policy is not religiously motivated or about religion (the Israeli State that occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 was secular, and Fatah, the major militant wing of the PLO, was/is secular). And then to conflat it with stuff reported in a document writtehn 2500 years ago about stuff that may have happened 3000+ years ago — well it is just baffling. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : Looks like nothing but an escuse for Jew-bashing.--Revas 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Tanakh and thereby the Bible do not mention the Jews by this name for most of this period. This article is crystal clear anti-Jewish POV. Also, it is original research (and not very good at that either). This article is totally against our guidelines. gidonb 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR: According to the biblical account, Joshua's war was one of land conquest, historically similar in that regard to most other wars. Additionally, the opposing armies and tribes were given the option of withdrawing peacefully. In many cases, specifically involving tribes dwelling east of the Jordan River, the biblical account details that the Israelites were not threatening opponents with conquest. Several tribes (such as the Emorite and Bashan) initiated hostilities by attacking first when offered complete peace. There is no basis for allegations of "beating" or "unwarranted arrest." This appears to be an exercise in the desire to show that every group is equally guilty historically of every offense as every other group, despite evidence to the contrary. The Indians aren't guilty of the slaughter of Armenians, and the Turks aren't guilty of employing the Hindu caste system. History isn't a monolith. HKT ^talk 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • HKT, by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything. It was an attempt to document those instances in which each group had committed acts of religious persecution. My God, I've never seen a series of articles so relentlessly scoured for some nonexistent "agenda". Babajobu 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "...by no means was this series an attempt to show that each group is equally guilty of everything." You know, from the looks of that "religious persecution" template, it sure seems like an attempt to show that each religious group is equally guilty of everything! HKT ^talk 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anti-semitic POV trash, original research. --Mrfixter 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV original research. Postdlf 09:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Historically relevant. --malathion ^talk 11:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It took me a while to decide on this (and to be sure that my response was not POV), but the entire section seems to be unnecessary nonsense. Most groups of some identifiable type, religious, racial, sexual, etc, have committed some form of organised persecution or crime. It is simply difficult to justify the need or purpose of an entire section in this vein except to feed arguments to those against particular groups, often ascribing to modern groups (note the site does not consider extinct religious sects) the actions of their predecessors. And on that note, I agree with jayg that it would be problematic to academically ascribe the acts of ancient Israel (even Yehudim) as those of Jews, and to further consider them factual, even if many Jews would happily claim both of these statements as true (on that basis the article would be POV!). And then there may also be similar problems in ascribing the acts of the State of Israel as those of Jews, even if the Christian acts article included those done by Christian countries in the name of their Lord and Saviour. Again, this idea that it is an act of persecution of the group as a whole would be difficult to defend. --jnothman ^talk 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer ^TALK 16:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheatedly agree with you. For Judaism this article can be part of its conscience. However: Are you willing to help expand this article and its series? Are you willing to defend it against POV warriers? I myself tried to defend are more neutral POV for this article, and I was the only one doing so. Unless there is a community dedicated to this project and to doing it right, it cannot succeed, as much as I would like it to succeed. --EMS | Talk 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Babajobu has done some good updates, showing more of what this article can be. So people may want to look again. However, my insecurity that this article can be kept as comprehensive and neutral as Babajobu left it remains. Between that and this article still being a pale shadow of what it should be, I retain my above vote of "strong delete". --EMS | Talk 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, all it's done is show exactly why this article should be deleted. Babajobu has still failed to provide a single scholarly resource which describes any of these things as "Religious persecution by Jews". It is 100% original research, and no amount of qualifiers can get around that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Original research is where the person is presenting and/or justifying a novel thesis. There is nothing novel about this. I therefore reject the label of original research. Also, the article now names scolarly sources for the Modern State of Isreal section even if there is not an explicit References section yet. My complaint is that this article is still inadequately researched, missing important incidents that can easily be gleaned from authoratative sources while retaining lesser content that is only weakly justified. That is also grounds for deletion, but is not the same thing as it leaves open to door to new, improved article at a later time. --EMS | Talk 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • EMS, Jayjg's tourretes-ish blurting out of "original research! original research!" is his way of avoiding the entire issue. There are plenty of citations in there. We could put a Harvard citation after every word and he'd still be muttering the same b.s. Babajobu 20:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Of couse Jayjg is calling this "original research" to avoid dealing with the issue. So what? I suspect that his opinion is so biased that the sysops will discount it for just that reason. However, you still lack the support of people like me who approve of the topic, but not the article. That is what is going to get it deleted. --EMS | Talk 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't understand the concept of approving of a topic, but voting for deletion because you dislike the article. My understanding was that the wiki way is to improve poor articles on legitimate topics, rather than delete them. Babajobu 01:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is getting more ludicrous as it is expanded. Babajobu has essentially made a list of any situation he could think of in which Jews held any kind of power or autonomy. Anyone familiar with the Khazar kingdom's history will know that not only did the various religious groups in the Khaganate enjoy complete religious freedom, but that its supreme court included Christians, Jews, Muslims and pagans. The one incident that even comes close to persecution is the execution of a muzzein (reported only in Muslim sources) and the destruction of a minnaret in retaliation for persecution of Jews in Persia. Likewise, he has listed Birobidzhan despite his inability to recall its name. That province, of course, was settled by a few totally secular Jews who never held any real political power or composed more than a small fraction of the oblast's population. It's more clear to me now that this article was from its inception intended purely as a platform for Jew-bashing. --Briangotts (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Briangotts, yes, I suggested a section on the Russian oblast, and yet, for shame, could not remember its name. I was hoping that people who had more knowledge of it might contribute to that section. I forgot that such people were more likely to sit around on the VfD page trying to snowjob the whole topic rather than contribute their knowledge. Viva la Wikipedia! Brian, do me a favor on run over to the VfD on Religious persecution by Muslims (to which I contributed more than I did to the Jewish article), and show the same disgust and dismay that such a topic should be tackled. I'll be holding my breath. Babajobu 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't hold it too long, as I wouldn't want to be the cause of any asphyxiation. The difference between that article and this is that one, however flawed it might be, documents numerous examples of a centuries old, ongoing phenomenon for which one could come up with thousands of examples. The proponents of this article have yet to produce a genuine example of religious persecution that did not take place in a single, 3500 year old source, and certain proponents (not naming names) then proceeded to list every single instance they could come up with (not many of those exist) in which Jews had any kind of power over others. --Briangotts (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I listed the few instances in which Jews held power in between the displacement from Judea and the Yishuv. Why, perchance would I have made such a list, other than the virulent antisemitism that you assume motivated this article (and presumably somehow also the persecution by Christians and Muslims articles)? Is it conceivable that I made that list because this series of articles was intended to describe how dominant religious groups misuse their power? And as such, that it made sense to explore those rare situations when Jews, though in exile, wielded some power? No, no, it must just have been my virulent antisemitism acting up again, like a troublesome canker sore. Oh, and as is clear to everyone but you, your explanation for why Religious persecution by Muslims is a legitimate topic but Religious persecution by Jews is illegitimate and offensive, is a bunch of pungent ethnocentric bullshit. Babajobu 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmmmm... well, I guess I'm going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. --Briangotts (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the pointer, made a few corrections to the Office Space article. Babajobu 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Would that you spent more time working on that article, and less time attacking people with whose vote you disagree with profanity-laced invective. --Briangotts (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                • This is really the first time I've ventured into a sensitive topic on Wikipedia. I'd say 99% of my edits have been in articles more like Office Space than Religious persecution by Muslims. The whole experience has left me so disgusted with Wikipedia, and with all this rampant ethnocentric autoeroticism, that I think I'll leave the touchy stuff to the flag wavers and return to Office Space-style material. As far as my profane invective, I'd say my invective was no saucier than yours, and while "bullshit" may be a very mildly profane word, "pungent ethnocentric bullshit" has the charm of being both evocative and accurate. So I figured it was worth it. Babajobu 00:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Hey, you may wish to check this article out too: Martyr complex. Perhaps, given your obvious expertise, you can flesh it out.
                • Oh, lord! Martyr complex redirects to Inferiority complex. Utterly unrelated concepts! I started to copyedit and wikify inferiority complex, but gave up after one minor edit. The article's such a mess! I was remarking to someone the other day that calling someone a "martyr" sounds rather different in these days of "martyrdom operations". The long-suffering saint is no longer the first thing that comes to mind. Did I mention that I thought your earlier posts were pungent ethnocentric bullshit? Babajobu 01:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • You know, I think you might have. It's hard to remember as I try to pay as little attention to your attacks as possible. I'm off to more productive things. Feel free to drop in the last word.--Briangotts (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
                    • I removed the incorrect redirect, and created a rather inadequate stub for martyr complex. Please go work on it. Babajobu 15:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ooh! Ooh! Idea. Let's make a new article about religious intolerance, with everyone's side being told. Umm. How many ways can we do this without being POV? The titles of this "series" is so POV.  :( I agree, it's history, especially that of Christianity (anyone remember The Spanish Inquisition? So I guess that goes under comment. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The idea might have some vague encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists.
  Guy Montag 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello? This is a Wikipedia. If it exists wrongly in its current form, but does have encyclopedic merit, try the "edit" button. Shem^(talk) 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Shem, what a novel idea!!! But no, no. I like the present way of doing things. When an article appears on a sensitive topic, just attack it in its original form, demand that it be deleted, and never contribute a single edit to making it better. Yeah. I prefer that. Babajobu 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • When a piece of trash article like this is created by a POV warrior in violation of WP:POINT it should be deleted as speedily as possible, and the only thing stopping it from happening in this case is that the creator's particular anti-Semitic POV happens to have support from a number of editors who are also racists.Existentializer 21:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm an anti-Semite? That's the best laughter I've had all day; I suppose "Shem" is a German name, yeah? Nevermind that I've also voted "Keep" on this article's partner VfD's for Islam and Christianity. What worthless, trite playing of the race card on your part, Existentializer. For shame, really. Shem^(talk) 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Shem, don't you get it?? We're surrounded by anti-semites!! They're everywhere!! The Hebrew names give them away!! So does their consistent voting in matters applying to different religious groups! Unless they show Jewish ethnocentric bias, they are antisemites!Babajobu 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Who do you think is an antisemitic POV warrior?? Me? The only remotely Jewish-related article I'd worked on before this was one I created about an Israeli photographer I like named Adi Barkan. Get over your paranoia! BTW, I hoped you voiced the same outrage on the VfD for Religious persecution by Muslims, which I worked on much more than I did this one. I'm sure your indignation is at the nature of the topic, and not just on the particular ethnic group focused on here. </sarcasm> Babajobu 21:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm guessing Existentializer is having a go at me again. He's been on at me a good bit, and I don't know why I've never crossed his path till this VFD.. unless of course he is someone else... --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • A quick look at your edit history was all I needed to see, "Punk". You're as obvious as they come. Watching you claim not to be a biased POV warrior is like watching an old Southern plantation owner complain "I'm not racist some of my best friends are niggers." Existentializer 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd appreciate it if you could mind your language when making groundless personal attacks, ok? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
                • I'd appreciated it if you'd cut the bullcrap; I was simply being honest.Existentializer 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Existentializer, you're all class. You and the other people here and in the Muslim version's VfD who claim that "the other versions are dandy, it's just the one that discusses my ethnic group that is outrageous and offensive"...all of you, you're all class. I think your last statement channeled the spirit of the whole ethnocentric lot of you. Babajobu 22:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Concurring with Guy Montag. The concept might have some encyclopedic reason to exist, but this article is atrociously written and pretty much unredeemable as it exists. Also this sort of article tends to decend into a POV warring playground for anti-semites.Klonimus 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • can you be specific? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's atrociously written then you'll have no trouble looking it over with your wonderfully practiced eye and cleaning it up. That's how wikis are supposed to work. (If, on the other hand, your objection is just a matter of ethnocentric wagon-circling, then of course you'll have no interest in cleaning it up. No prizes for guessing which one is the case.) Babajobu 00:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I will be "more speific". When I first found this article, one of the main headings was "Ethnic Cleansing". Need I name the person who above admited being responsible for that?
      One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that a dedicated group a defenders can keep an article like this from being a "POV playground". However, I do not see that group in existance for this article at this time. --EMS | Talk 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• second opinion: Merge with Jewish views of religious pluralism? - maybe some of this content should go somewhere, but as more be discussed in an article Jewish attitudes to other religions and people, rather than their acts of supposed persecution. The other religion as persecutor articles should similarly be merged with articles on the attitudes of that religion to others, rather than lists of their persecutory acts alone. In such articles, this information has context. --jnothman ^talk 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this filth. Neutrality^talk 00:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • At last! Someone who is unafraid to pull punches, someone who calls a thing by its true name! Neutrality, thank heavens you're here. You'll notice that there is also a VfD on the filth over at Religious persecution by Muslims. Go bring that same unshakable integrity you've shown us here and go demand they delete that Islamophobic filth! Look forward to seeing your vote! Babajobu 00:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm resisting the temptation to use a very rude phrase here... --Neutrality^talk 04:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Certain proponents of this article (not naming names) have basically admitted that this is basically a soapbox from which to attack the article Religious persecution by Muslims. --Briangotts (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't know if you were alluding to me; if so, I'll just point out that I've worked on both articles, and support keeping both articles. Neither is an attempt to attack the other. I've simply pointed out that demanding that one be deleted while the other retained is PEB. Babajobu
• Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes. Especially the one on "Religious persecution by atheists" (French Revolution, communist countries), which was already being discussed before this whole VfD fiasco derailed it. That would have been the most shamelessly anti-religious of all. You know what, I think the people who wrote these articles just hate people. Yep. They're people haters. Babajobu 01:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All these groups (atheists included) are too large and diverse to be lumped into some monolithic label as perpetrators of persecution. It would be more appropriate to address various persecutions that have occured in history in the relevant articles that discuss their more specific contexts. In fact, most of the content in all three of these up for vfd already seems to be handled in a less provocative way within other more balanced articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The groups are not too monolithic to be covered as such in numerous other articles, so I don't see why this one should be different. And you cannot honestly tell me that there is a more balanced description of the displacement of Palestinians anywhere on Wikipedia than is in this article. My guess is that the Hebrew wikipedia covers it with less sympathy to the traditional Israeli perspective. More thorough, perhaps, but not more balanced. Babajobu 01:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I think it's a common (xenophobic) human problem to project monolithic (particularly negative) behaviors, beliefs, intentions, attributes onto *other* people who are different than *us*. Reality is that people are individuals, influenced by all sorts of complicated unique variables that shape each person's outlook. As far as balance RE Palestinians... if we get more editors like Ramallite highly qualified to represent the Palestinian perspective [ multi-faceted of course :-) ], I'm sure there will be vast improvement. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all three and cleanup. ElBenevolente 02:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic. Almafeta 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
• Delete Just a plainly biased article which will upset readers of the encyclopedia. I suggest that the articles on Muslims, Christians and other religions are also deleted and any worthwhile content reorganized for specific event pages. We know that wars on religous issues were common, pointing it out is just plain anti-Religion (specific to case). Evolver of Borg 22 July 2005
• Delete - for the content (being dubious and loosely tied), and especially for the very idea. I'm sure many Jews persecuted and are persecuting others on religious grounds or otherwise, but such a subject for an article implies Jews as a collective are responsible for this. What's next - famous Jewish rapists?--Doron 07:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but persecution should be limited to religiously motivated persecution. --Germen 11:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crazyeddie 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Babajobu --Ttyre 15:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete deliberately POV article with distorted presentation of information. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if sources are provided (preferably academic publications, books and external links would also be useful). Otherwise, delete. Does seem to fit into Template:Religious persecution, but should be 'judaism' instead of 'jews', I think. Whether there is enough info for an article or just a short section would depend on amount of material provided by contributors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Briangotts. If someone actually writes something encyclopaedic, I'll change my vote. --Zantastik talk 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Incognito 17:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

^{Incognito (talk · contribs) has a very low edit count (33 edits, to date), yet has been a user for several months. This user pops up occasionally, and has voted "Keep" on the "GNA" VfD. All these traits are shared by Dv (talk · contribs), who voted "Keep" on this VfD, as well. HKT talk} 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete delete this page and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article on faith-centered persecution can be made. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Since I commented eariler (see "Ooh ooh!" in bold), I've rethought my decision... Delete this series and possibly merge if we can write an all-encompassing article without it being POV, which I feel is nearly impossible, since this is likely to be inherently POV. Again, delete until further notice. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Bible is not a reliable source for historical information, and there are no other sources. -Willmcw 19:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, together with the other all-in-one stereotyping articles like Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians. -- Olve 20:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Too true. For the same reason we should VfD articles Christianity, Judaism, Islam and atheism, as each attempts to treat diffuse and diverse phenomena as some sort of discrete entity. When will the needless stereotyping end?? Babajobu 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This work, besides being original research and holding that the documents used to show religious persecution are both unusable but usable enough to write such an article, also contains facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for which there is already an article in existance for (and such matter is not nessicarily religious either). Many of the padding is simply the writing of other articles to soften the presence of this article. This article simply doesn't serve any purpose beyond aggrivation and recycling select informatino. SF2K1 22:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as we have articles concerning Christians and Muslims, we should probably have one including Jews. But if we get rid of one, we should get rid of all of them. LokiCT 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This vote is LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit, made 30 minutes after the user's first edit. Also voted on related VfD's. So far, this user has removed this notice once. HKT ^talk 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

He has now removed it twice. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the two of you seem to have nothing to do other than to follow me around attempting to discredit my edits on every page I touch. LokiCT 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see User talk:LokiCT for an answer to that question. HKT ^talk 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not supporting the article as it stands, however we all have an 'edit this page' button--ClemMcGann 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV, but that is not the reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? The articles do not have a clear mandate, and are likely to be disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Polonius, I agree that the title is ambiguous and has caused problems. In my contributions to the articles in this series I've understood "religious persecution by..." to mean persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, irrespective of whether the motivation for the persecution may have included economic, political, cultural, nationalist or other considerations. Thus the Jedwabne massacre would definitely apply. Babajobu 13:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Babajobu, but that is the problem - it basically means that anytime anybody persecutes anyone else of a different religion, in any way, that it is religious persecution. This would mean that almost every war since Martin Luther in Europe would be religious persecution of some group or another, and every incident by an Israeli against an Arab in Israel would be religious persecution, as would any incident against the Jews from 140 CE to 1948 CE, anywhere in the world. I don't buy it, and it seems like a mess. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Or delete all other Religious persecution articles as well. -- Toytoy 04:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't go through the whole history, but the current version I just read doesn't mention religion at all. There is no discussion of different religions, heresy, restrictions on religious practices etc. The article makes no mention of any aspect of Judaism. A real article on 'Religious persecution by Jews' could definitely be written, but this sadly is not it.--Pharos 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Babajobu--Witkacy 07:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gilgamesh he 13:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jayjg, with the rest of the 'religious persecution by' articles.Palmiro 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs rewriting, and its controversial, but the topic is important Salsb 00:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete This article is written by a Mohammedian to deflect attention from the atrocities commited by the Mohammedian sects.--CltFn 14:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are objections about "Mohemedian" influence on the article. Those concerns may be legitimate, this is an important part of an important coherent series about religious persecution. I don't claim to be non-partisan, as in fact I sympathize with the Zionist cause, but I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. --Zeno of Elea 14:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In its present form, the article contains no actual information about "religious persecution" which is what it is supposedly about. Xtra 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -asx- 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is as valid as any other addressing the issue of religous persecution. Ezeu 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• I return from the dead, to have this obliterated. This link is Broken 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this totallly pathetic "attempt" to smear Jews. What will they think of next? "Jews as the founders of roach extermination?" What a joke this would all be except that in the sick minds of Jew-haters this is taken as "gospel truth". Tut tut, what morons, or as they say meshuga in kop! IZAK 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What race-card-playing tripe. I trust you'll vote the same at this VfD's partner articles concerning Islam and Christianity, IZAK? 'Cause you know, I must be a "Muslim-hater" and "Christian-hater" too, supporting that these be kept and made encyclopedic. Shem^(talk) 07:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Tripe, tripe, you say?? Aha, yes, it is tripe to assume that a very puny Jewish population's acts (of about 13 million Jews) is equal to the havoc that has been caused by about two billion Christians and about a billion and a half Moslems over the span of the last 1500-2000 years. Get real, who has persecuted who around here in history? It's pretty sad when all the article can do is cite the Hebrew Bible...how about the other parts of that Hebrew Bible that affirm the Jews as God's chosen people? You can't have it both ways, either all of the Hebrew Bible is accurate or none of it. This is not about "race" (what a weird thought!) this is about pure facts and logic. Wikipedia is not in the business of setting up the "relativity of religions" and such like. The fact remains, Christians and Moslems have killed millions of Jews over the last 1500-2000 years, and not the reverse...and now, to "hide behind the mommy's skirt" of the Jews' own Hebrew Bible is a mental distortion worthy of the Nazi hate machine. Or don't you get that either? IZAK 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, over the past several thousand years there have been significantly more than Thirteen Millions Jewish people. This article should not, and does not blame present generations for what people of their religion did hundreds and thousands of years ago, that would be stupid and ridiculous, it just records them. However, to pretend it did not happen is to whitewash history. Clearly, like the Zorostrians, the Jewish people, being a minority, have for most of their history been those oppressed, however, like the Zorostrians, when they have been in the Majority there have been instances of Oppression of those who do not share the faith. I don't see why this, along with instances of oppression by all the major Religions, should not be documented --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"This is not about race," yet those who support all of these articles are "Jew-haters." "A part of the Nazi hate machine," too? Sure thing, IZAK, I'll remember that one. Shem^(talk) 08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am only voting here because the facts of history are being twisted here completely. I am not voting on other articles. (Nowhere are their "rules" that one must vote on the votes here of what religions do as the "mean guys".) I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish you would realize that from from your line of reasoning you show that you know little about Jews, Judaism, and Jewish history and that you would do yourself a great favor by staying out of this discussion as a mark of self-respect. IZAK, keep ramming that foot down your throat. I'm enjoying it. Shem^(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, Shem's making a heck of a lot more sense than you are. I don't know whether you're meshuga in kop, but you've sure got a lot of nonsense in your kop. Please, dear sir, show me where the account in this article of the dislocation of the Palestinians is "twisted completely". The irony here is that the article as presently written is extremely sympathetic to Jews, and very much partial to the traditional Israeli account of the War. But the hasbarah brigades are too conditioned to even notice! If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth", as another luminary commented earlier! Babajobu 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, you are writing in an extremely patronising and offensive tone. Please refrain from it. Xtra 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish, he's being no more patronising or offensive than IZAK here was from his first sentence, and certainly less so than IZAK's most recent response. Shem^(talk) 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Baba: Now what are you saying here, that this is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There are so many articles about that already! Are you claiming that the Israelis (as Jews?) are RELIGIOUSLY "persecuting" the poor Palestinians??? Now you know that that is a load of crap! Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the Middle East! (Errrr: How free are Jews in Iran or Libya or Saudi Arabi to practice Judaism?) No-one in Israel is stopping anyone from practicing any religion (plenty of mosques and such like to prove it), but Israelis do have a right to capture or kill TERRORISTS who want to kill Israeli citizens. (Ever heard of Self defense?) That issue has no relevance to "Religious persecution by Jews". What is Shem saying? That we must also excuse Christian and Moslem violence against Jews over the last 1500-2000 years if this article is to be deleted? Is that good logic based on facts or is it a meshugane POV? IZAK 09:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, please refrain from calling contributors with whom you disagree "insane". Xtra has a very gentle nature, and is no doubt profoundly upset by this insulting characterization. Unless, of course, Xtra's umbrage was politically and selectively motivated, in which case he probably won't ask you to refrain from insulting people. As for the points you made: no, this article is not exclusively about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but some of the events which occured in that conflict will naturally be relevant. I don't necessarily deny that Israel is the most religiously tolerant country in the region (see earlier comments on this issue). I think Shem was making the commonsense point that even groups which are ordinarily on the receiving end of persecution can themselves occasionally act as persecutors, and if we are to reject the very idea of an article on religious persecution by Jews, then we really have to reject such "persecution by" articles generally. That's not meshugas, in fact it's just plainly true. Babajobu 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you are making personal attacks against me. Calling someone a "meshuga in kop" is insulting. And saying "If it says "Jews", it's got to be antisemitic "filth"" is just a common way that people who defend anti-semetism counter allegations of anti-semetism as it is just political spin. As such, that is also offensive. Xtra 09:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Xtra, I agree that calling someone "meshuga in kop" is insulting. Please note that I did not call anyone meshuga in kop; rather, it was IZAK who called people meshuga in kop. Please redirect your comments toward him. Looking forward to seeing that. Thanks. Babajobu 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of backwards? "We cannot reject a priori the concept of religious persecution by Jews, therefore we should start the article and see if we can find some". I'm not impugning your motives or anything, just questioning the plan. It still reads to me like an article on ethnic cleansing and nation building; the modern Israel part is entirely such, I think unavoidably because the conflict is national-based, not religious, at least from the Jewish side. Israel was originally intended to be secular, Islam is still freely practiced along with pretty much every religion known to man. The Biblical part might be put into a religious persecution context in that it's in the "God told us to kill them" vein, but religion was pretty much indistinguishable from nationality at the time and my feeling is that in such a case, religion is subservient to nationality, much as is diet, clothing, language, etc. You wouldn't characterize Biblical conflict as persecution by people who don't eat milk with meat, for instance, but it's the same population whether you're defining them by nationality, religion, or diet. Gzuckier 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier, I don't think there is any way you can entirely disentangle religious persecution from nationalist, economic, ethnic, cultural, et cetera. The Republic of Ireland has been virtually emptied of Protestants since the state's founding. Was that due to religious persecution, or nationalistic persecution because of their association with Britain? Muhammad massacred the males of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza...was that religious persecution, or just an act of particular barbarity during an intercommunal struggle over power, resources, et cetera? Trying to come up with a single monocausal explanation for these examples and others is a fool's errand: there were lots of contributing factors, the motivation was complex. So for the purposes of these articles I've considered "religious persecution" to be persecution of a minority religious group by a majority religious group, rather than restricting it to cases in which motivation could be proven to be exclusively religious. No real-life cases exist of such perfect and idealized "persecutions for exclusively religious reasons". And yet persecution of religious minorities is a real and important phenomenon. Babajobu 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But writing an article on "religious persecution by Jews of Palestinian Arabic Muslims and Palestinian Arabic Christians but not of Lebanese Christians or European Christians or Bedouin Muslims or Muslimish Druze" is a bit like writing an article on "the color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green". Gzuckier 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"The color which is exhibited by objects which are blue before Jan. 1 1005 but after that date is exhibited by objects which are green", surely that article, too, is worthy of a stub. Remember, I'm an inclusionist (See the tramautic-for-all-involved events that unfolded below in response to Ambi's post). Regardless, I think that if the article on Religious persecution by Jews survives the VfD, it should certainly be expanded to include any instances of persecution of the other groups you mention. I don't think that's quite so jarring or arbitrary as the switch from one color to another that your new stub adopts at the change of millenium. I think they all fit neatly under "Religious persecution by Jews", just as persecuted Sudanese animists in the 20th century and persecuted Yathribi Jews in the 8th century both fit under Religious persecution by Muslims Babajobu 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as I have stated on the other two VfDs I believe this should either be deleted or link to Jewish groups. Jews as a whole have not persecuted in any coherent manner but various groups of Jews have no doubt. Therefore the scope of this article should be much more limitted to avoid massive "Jews do this" generalizations that creept into articles like this. gren 16:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Grenavitar. Ambi 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Holy mackrel!!! The high priest of Deletionism has graced this VfD with his presence! Quick, somebody VfD London and see if hu votes for it!! Babajobu 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I'm a regular dues-paying member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and since Ambi is the prophet and founder of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, I thought it not outside the norms of decent society to make a gentle jibe at his expense. I've since been contacted by a wikifunctionary and informed that such behavior poses an existential threat to Wikipedia, and reflects very poorly on myself. I don't know what to say except that I am so, so, so deeply ashamed of what I've done, and the harm and discombobulation that I've caused, both within the larger Wikisphere and to Ambi huself. Don't despise so much as pity me: to do something like that I must surely be a deeply, profoundly unhappy person. Please work on either martyr complex, Hashem or Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, three of this week's Babajobu collaborations. Babajobu 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ChanochGruenman

• Delete. I think this question is really about the validity of the series as a whole. There's no doubt that there've been persecutions by Christians and by Muslims. The question is whether there has been sufficient persecution conducted by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. etc. to justfy articles on each one of these faiths. IMO, the article on Jews provides no good evidence that there has been a history of religious persecution by Jews – persecution, maybe, but not religious persecution. Like Babajobu, I am an Inclusionist, but I don't think this article makes the case that its title implies. Change it to Historical persecutions by Jews, but don't pretend that it is part of a "neutral" series on religious persecution that inclues all faiths. That's hypocricy designed to conceal the fact that some faiths have a history of persecution and that others don't. Paul B 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Historical persecutions by Jews would have been a better title for this article. Not perfect, but definitely better. I don't know what the perfect title would have been. Babajobu 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Historical Persecutions title isn't perfect, true. Part of the problem is the "by Jews" bit. Individual Jews may have been responsible for persecutions, just as individual Christians, Atheists or whatever may have been, but it would be absurd to list all persecutions by by individual Jews or groups of Jews. But "Judaism" is no better, since the belief system itself does not do the persecuting. Part of the problem lies in the fact that Jewishness as a belief and as an ethnic identity can't be clearly distinguished. There isn't really the same difficulty with most other faiths. Paul B 08:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sujre about that; I think the "universal" faiths are more of an exception than a rule. Christianity and Islam, of course, and Buddhism I guess. But even then individual subgroups are tied to different nations. Coptic Christianity, Druze version of Islam, etc. and in the ancient world, I think distinct religions for each nation was pretty much the rule. Judaism has a funny spot, as it posits a universal God who everyone should believe in, but doesn't require adherence to the faith itself for anyone other than Jews. This of course is interpreted as some sort of superiority complex by.... here it comes..... get ready..... antisemites. Gzuckier 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV magnet. --Vsion 04:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep POV debates and discussions will cause trouble but will enlighten even more . Delete on condition that it is moved to Historical persecution by Jews.--Jondel 06:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Historical persecution by Jews', which is what this article is really about as written, is an unencyclopedic topic, which is why I voted to delete. I would support an article actually about 'Religious persecution by Jews'.--Pharos 06:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (my final decision ) --Jondel 06:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All religous groups persecute others. If you have persecutions by Christians and by Muslims then why not Jews. I thenk expand but keep NPOV --Jcw69 06:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

All religious groups persecute others? I look forward to your Religious persecution by Buddhists article. Paul B 08:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I breathlessly await Religious persecution by Discordians, then. It should be quite entertaining. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've wondered (but done no research into) whether there might be instances of Religious persecution by Buddhists in Myanmar to form the basis of such an article. Is Vietnam majority Buddhist? If so, has it been smooth sailing all along for religious minorities there? On the other hand, worshippers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have an absolutely spotless record in these matters (though atheists do not). Babajobu 10:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think some Tamils in Sri Lanka have made the complaint that they are vicimised as non-Buddhists, and it's been suggested that the 1596 ban on Christianity and execution of Christians in Japan was influenced by Buddhist institutions, but these are all rather weak examples, since there is no unambiguous link between the established religious institutions and the persecutions, as there is with Christianity and Islam. Paul B 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When's that Religious Persecution by Bahai going to be done? Gzuckier 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bön practitioners (claim they) were persecuted to near extintion by Buddhists [23]--Ezeu 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. As distasteful as religious persection by one or another religion happens, the fact is that it happens, no matter what the religion is. Lionizing one religion and/or another as "perfect and clean" isn't a reality, no matter what your religious beliefs (or if you have any at all) are.--Mitsukai 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, just because you haven't actually committed any felonies is no reason we shouldn't list your felony convictions. After all, you're not perfect. (using you in the generic sense, I don't mean you) Gzuckier 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I would have no problem with an article on the topic, if it were done sensibly, and cases were cited. However, to start citing biblical figures (Abraham, Moses, Joshua), who are claimed by all three monotheistic religions (Ibrahim, Musa, etc.) solely as Jews for the purposes of this article is biased, and to account for semi-mythological wars between neighboring tribes and clans in the ancient Near East as examples of religious persecution in the modern sense of the term is utterly anachronistic and unhistorical. Danny 11:03, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antonia Pugliese

vanity/attack/whatever by habitual vandal IP Ben-w 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — nn — RJH 18:27, 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 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organica

As not notable. Lamb seem to be the only example of this genre, and even they seem to not be widely categorised as such. The only examples I can find with Google are mirrors of wikipedia. It seems to be a genre of which only one band is an example, and it is seemingly used by only one (unnamed) critic. -- ascorbic 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• "It seems to be a genre of which only one band is an example" -- actually, the article explicitly states this. Delete. Dcarrano 14:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can a 'genre' with only one constituent really be a genre? -- MrBland 22:52, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Creatures

Created in August 2004, although the template never got completely filled in, nothing since. Hiding talk 18:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Project has petrified. Xoloz 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft Expansion Pack

Not true. They have announced no such plans and the game itself is far from bug free for them to start working on something new. Delete ASAP and remove from the template and respective pages. 142.58.101.46 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you a moron? The source is the producer of the game, and they are working on this expansion. If that source is not good enough then we should just remove PlayStation 3 and everything else not released yet. Havok 09:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Expand or Delete. This seems more like a comment that I'd see on my IM than an entry I'd hope to see in an encyclopedia. However it does have a notable source and would be good news for those into the game, but it's just that - news. Hello World! 19:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However, my reason for that is because of its minimial content, rather being a crystal ball. SYSS Mouse 00:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to main WOW page. Radiant_>|< 12:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It will be expanded when more info is given, deleting it won't do anything seeing as when more detail is released it will only be started again. Havok 09:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We do have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, so we might as well keep this and revise it as we learn more. Ninuor 22:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been confirmed to be in development by Blizzard entertainment. Read the following excerpt from this article at Gamespot: "Shane Dabiri, lead producer of the World of Warcraft development team, posted a lengthy message titled 'World of Warcraft Battleplan.' Besides outlining increased customer service, the addition of servers, and gameplay additions, Dabiri's post also addressed the $64,000 question. 'Some have asked about an expansion and what it might hold,' he said. 'I wanted to let players know that it is in the works, and we'll release details as soon as we can.'" --tomf688^(talk) 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While there is no evidence of what will be in this expansion as of yet then there is nothing much that the article can be based on. It will how ever be expanded quickly when more news is released by Blizzard regarding what all will be included in the expansion pack and when it is due out. WCX 22:45, 26 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 13:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy's Favorite Porridge

Delete or BJADON Humerous, but not notable. "Daddy's Favorite Porridge" gets 0 Google hits, and it appears to be a simple game someone made up. Icelight 19:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

BJADON. If nothing else, seems like original research. Superm401 | Talk 19:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pook. This game's real. I've played it. It's real. Dunno what else to say.

This users first edit outside of the creation of the article in question. Icelight 22:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

BuyLowSellHigh. Played this game years ago at boarding school in England. Could be a British/European thing, but it's definitely legit.

This user's first edit. Icelight 22:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently popular amongst sockpuppets but otherwise of little note. delete. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ABOVE VOTE TAMPERED WITH. ORIGINAL VOTE WAS DELETE - [24]

The Voice of Reason. Hey, here's a crazy thought. Why don't you guys stop acting like a bunch of colossal tools and leave the stupid entry alone? Honestly, this is pathetic. Do you really have that miserable of lives, where you feel the need to lord your nonexistent powers over everyone else here by playing Wikipedia Nazis? Go outside. Go get laid, for Christ's sake. Go do something -- ANYTHING -- constructive with your time instead of sitting here and acting like your socially inept opinions matter to anyone. You are a bunch of man children. All of you. Who cares if you can Google this entry successfully or not? Who died and made you king of the internet? Seriously. Get. A. Freaking. Life. Yes, "Icelight," I'm talking to you. Do not delete the entry.

• BobsBigBoy. Agreed. Do not delete.

DO NOT DELETE This is the original poster of the article again. Maybe I can help shed some light on this, because it's clearly caused some confusion. I actually did first play this game in England when I was studying aboard in 2000. It was taught to me in the kitchen of our dorm by some local students as a drinking game. We then started using it as a means of dividing chores, or deciding who had to do a particularly unappealing duty in the building (kitchen duty for the week, for instance). Now, living in Los Angeles, I've played this game in many contexts. I'm not sure how else to explain it's real other than by offering my experience. I can't vouch for the universality of its name, of course. Perhaps the people who taught it to me renamed it, or perhaps those who taught it to them renamed it. I just don't know. All I do know is it's a common occurrence in my life, the lives of many people I know, to play this game. I'd ask you to not dismiss it just because you haven't happened upon it, and because nobody has chosen to write about it in his blog or on his site (as if being on a personal site confers any legitimacy anyway). Thank you.

DON'T DELETE! Everyone should at least have the opportunity to learn the rules of this clever game. What group of roustabouts wouldn't want to take part in a game where one player per round is burdened with the label of Daddy's Favorite Porridge?! Please don't delete. I've played this game (and loved it), and want others to have the opportunity to learn the rules.

DO NOT DELETE This game is of fairly recent origins, but it is legitimate. I've played it myself a few times. GodAmongMen 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT: Speedied by Manning 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molatar

Delete - Web site advert / Vanity / not notable - Nearly speediable as vandalism. Tεxτurε 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Friday 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shouldn't printing someone's address make it speediable? --Etacar11 23:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy if possible. DreamGuy 00:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Speedied by Manning 00:31, July 20, 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!) 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brotiger

And some more pseudo-linguistic hoaxery. Joyous (talk) 19:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not much more to say; just read it Robdurbar 19:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Save this article: it is an obscure yet significant linguistic development that needs to be documented. A failure to do so would fly in the face of Wikipedia's very purpose

T. Blake Littwin

---

Save the Brotiger!

-Andrew: Boston,MA

• Delete, (no supporting evidence, appears spurious) and kindly ask anon IP users to register and make progress with supportive edits instead of using their first appearance on a VfD. Also: wax my mustache. --Icelight 22:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Save this entry At first glance, this entry seems like a farcical excercise in wordplay. But after consulting with a few of my colleagues, I came to the realization that 'brotiger' is a genuine linguistic development. Please reconsider.

Regards, Prof. Carl J. Harris (Utah State College)

• ^^^ Heh. Anyway, delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 14:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto restaurants

This page was tagged for cleanup-rewrite but has not been touched for nearly three months.

Delete. This is a good idea for an article, but if no one is going to write it, it might as well go. Some one can recreate later when they actaully want to write something. •Zhatt• 17:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Toronto Wikicity and delete. Wikipedia isn't really the place for this; the Wikicity is. Bearcat 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Bearcat in general terms, but there's nothing to move. -Harmil 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • True...but if someone were to expand it, that'd be the proper place for it to happen... Bearcat 23:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Harmil. the creator of the article (User:Schmal) came and left on the same day in April. It is unlikely s/he'll be back to re-strat this article. Ground Zero 21:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like the author left without paying the bill... JamesBurns 08:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for inactivity. --Deathphoenix 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete of course, but there would be room for a general article on restaurants in Toronto.--Pharos 07:30, 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 13:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Summit

Delete - Vanity/advert - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C Programming Mistakes - Looks like an advert for the book/site/person in combination with the other article about the book. - Tεxτurε 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep adverts should be re-written, but he's notable IMHO. He's published and he gets his name splashed around the net (because of said FAQ) enough to achieve fair Google notability. -Harmil 20:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the only thing to say about him is "he wrote a C programming faq", then he's not notable. Also, getting a book published is not a big deal; we don't, and won't, have articles on most published authors. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless notability further established. Radiant_>|< 12:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wile E. Dcarrano 14:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not gonna vote -- I'm waaaaaaaay too biased :-) -- but let me just say that I have no problem with deleting the article, but if it is deleted, the link on C programming language#External links should be delinked, too. (It was only to "fill in" that preexisting link that I composed the -- admittedly mildly vain -- article.) Steve Summit 03:17, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11

reason #1: content is copy-paste from gasb.org; reason#2: it's a very narrow topic only nerdy accountants would be interested (too insignificant to have 50 different articles about them); reason #3: the list is not finished and the guy disappeared; reason#4: I created just a simple list of all those statements so they don't mess up the accounting category (see List of GASB Statements) -User:Renata3

• Merge or delete If we can agree on a valid strategy for summarizing and merging into one (perhaps existing) article, great. Otherwise nuke em per User:Renata3 -Harmil 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • They are already (sort of) merged in List of GASB Statements. It does not have the summary, but the summaries in these articles are copyvio and it would be a real pain in the bottom part of my body to try to write 50 summaries of something not significant enough for Wiki. Renata3 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all.  Grue  21:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Also, if copy/pasted, isn't this copyvio? Radiant_>|< 12:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Renata3. Dcarrano 14:49, July 20, 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 13:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Members of MPA 2005

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Fingers-of-Pyrex -Harmil 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It just as worth while as a list of members of parliament. It's level is part of the Birth Place/Grave Yard of UK politicians. If some one every get around to writting the much needed Political COntrol of UK Police Forces it will be a useful example.--Jirate 20:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as above. And are those phone numbers in the last section? --Carnildo 22:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Fingers-of-Pyrex. JamesBurns 08:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Fingers-of-Pyrex. --Wikiacc (talk) 19:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this information is well presented, and I see nothing to gain by deleting it. Themindset 03:05, 1 August 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!) 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Isais

Apparently a Star Wars character. The article had a speedy tag, which I removed since it does not fit the criteria. It should still go, however, unless someone can fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This is not a canon character, but one created by a user who's bordering on being a vandal.--Kross 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable fanfic. JamesBurns 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The link from the VfD page to here appears to be bad. Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fanfic. Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernst Tugendhat

Very short article with no references, near speedy but not quite. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. "Ernst Tugendhat" "Martin Heidegger" gets 278 unique Google hits, which would not normally be enough for me. However, he has lots of books at Amazon (the link won't work after copy-paste, so check the search yourselves), which I think is enough for the WP:PROF test. However, the titles I can only guesstimate as being in the same field and thus by the same author: I could be wrong. -Splash 21:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some bits of information I could find (but it is just first shot). Someone should translate German Wiki article. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not someone I know anything about, but he definitely exists, is a well-known philosopher, and has published pretty widely. "Ernst Tugenhat" gets 7,570 raw hits from Google, incidentally. I've expanded the article a little, and have started work on the bibliography. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Figure is notable within his field, article meets criteria for inclusion. Hall Monitor 17:38, 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 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 02:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Police Cantonment Complex

No real content but not quite a speedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Leave it. I don't see too much of a problem here. --Several Times 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gets only 182 unique Google hits most of which seem to be as a result of giving out its address in various places. This results because a lot of paperwork happens there judgin from who you might contact there. That same link gives a different address as the police force's HQ, and random bureaucrat-holding-boxes are not intrinsically notable. -Splash 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From what I can tell, this seems to be the major police center of Singapore.--Pharos 07:59, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collin Street Bakery

Spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. --Etacar11 23:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:25, 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 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stara navika

Well, if the new proposal for non-notable bands passes, this will be a speedy candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn promisingcruft. This is also the kind of thing that will test the new 'does not assert notability' policy, since that has passed. -Splash 21:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  You what? How did that pass? What was the score? Grace Note 04:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  Proposal 1 from WP:CSD/Proposal, about "unremarkable people". About 74%. The bands proposals actually all failed, but I was referring more generically to the use of the "promising young" claim. Don't need a discussion of that here, but I can see some editors taking that as a claim to notability. -Splash 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no claim to notability. --Etacar11 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 14:54, July 20, 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 13:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dupper

Neologism. Google gives >30 000 hits for "Dupper", but that's because it's a surname and a Norwegian plural noun. DS 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 14:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divorced for the third time

This is another of Striver's article creations. There is interesting material here, but it should be placed in an article on Islamic law re marriage. I am not sure that there IS such an article. No one looking for this material could find it from this bizarre title. Zora 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wow, how amusing, my article got a Vfd... and guess by who? If im not mistaken, this is the 4:th Vfd she has been puting on my articles.

Zora, why dont you just link it, or put a sugestion to merge or rename it? No, we must have a Vfd, it just would'nt be the same, whould it?

• Keep If she want to rename, merge or link, she can sugest it, but not delet.

My motivation for not having it in another article: It easier to link to it, since ther is 3 articles that result in this and ther is 3 article that can resolve it. It would not be fair to the other 5 articles if it would be put in one of the 6, if the reader wants to read only about this, s/he will have to searh for this in the article it will be put in. Hence, it is easier for the reader if it haves it own aricle, even, or just because, it does not contain so much information related to a single one of the 6.

--Striver 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep. I think this article can be expanded into a quite informative article.--Zereshk 03:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. You cant just delete a article because its got a 'bizarre title'. Recommend another title.--Ya Ali 11:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep. You said there is some interestig material, then why should it be deleted, instead it should be expanded

--Khalid! 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, redirect to Divorce. Also note that you can only vote once. Radiant_>|< 12:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree that the non-descriptive title is a problem. Merge to Islamic view of marriage. Dcarrano 15:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

coment Islamic view of marriage is a overview page linking to separat articles, not a independen article of its own. The title needing to be changed does not warant a deletion. --Striver 15:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Nominators criteria is not a sufficient reason for a delete. Article is mildly notable. — RJH 15:17, 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.