Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 21

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. I have merged the list to the list article, and added a mention to the series' article. I have redirected this article to the list since that was the real 'merge' part of things. Changed my mind. There was about as much content to go to both places. It seems more sensible to redirect a thing from a series to the article on the series, so that's what I've done. -Splash 02:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Premiere

Not significant enough for an encyclopedia entry. Should be merged with show's main page. Barkeep49 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into List of fictional films or delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Andrew. Binadot 02:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. For future reference, if you believe an article should be merged and not deleted, you can go ahead and be bold and perform the merge yourself, or list the articles at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles if you are not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter (or just feeling lazy). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with related article. Hamster Sandwich 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of fictional films. JamesBurns 08:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Possibly I'm very confused here but isn't the article about a fictional movie theatre rather than a fictional film?... so Merge into Drake and Josh. -- Lochaber 11:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the majority of the article is itself a list of fictional films (shown at the theatre) so it would fit nicely in our List of fictional films article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see, in which case I vote for the natural Merge - stuff on The Premiere to Drake and Josh (and redirect there) and the list of films to List of fictional films. -- Lochaber 15:36, 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 no consensus, so keep. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parawiki

This article is vanity (or do we make an exception for other wikis?) --R.Koot 02:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --R.Koot 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, that was a though one, but seems like a legitimate initiative by Kassel University on a topic that surely is notable.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  • True, but even though it is from an an acedemic institution, it still read as commercial propaganda. It would need to be rewritten at least. --R.Koot 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless it's been changed recently, I don't see how it's propaganda. A small simple article about a small simple project, deserves a mention in here. Themindset 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is unclear. I don't think we should make an exception after all the forum listings we've deleted... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. (A rewrite would be good though.) — Bcat (talk | email) 21:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• MERGE into List of wikis 132.205.44.43 15:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and an entry to the List of wikis (i.e. not a merge and redirect). -Splash 17:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten and expanded. Some notability. JamesBurns 02:51, 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psicanica

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I am Thomas Powell, the author of the psicanica materials, owner of the website psicanica.com, and holder of all copyrights on the books and materials. I have placed that information on Wikipedia. If you wish to verify this, you may contact me by phone at 011 52 951 515 2149 or email me at tompowell@psicanica.com. I furthermore give anybody permission to use the articles I place on Wikipedia freely with condition that they cite the source as www.psicanica.com. I believe that all human knowledge belongs to the race and is the source of our progress -- a point of view, alas, not supported by our current copyright laws. But that is another issue.

I am new to Wikipedia and how it operates. However, looking over some of the comments here, it is interesting to see invalidations of what is very technical, philosophic and psychological material by people who, as far as I can see from their pages, have no background in the area at all, much less have even read the source books they are invalidating. (I have made it as non-technical and reader friendly as I can on Wikipedia, but the source materials are very technical.) I get the impression that for some, it is their hobby to just invalidate/delete whenever they can. The fact that some item of information should be beyond or outside of one's current level of knowledge or even contradict it, does not make it wrong or eligible for deletion. I thought that Wikipedia was a brilliant project, an attempt to gather up and catalog human knowledge. To see such trite remarks/reasons for deletion (other than copy vios, which I have answered above) and without any supporting arguments or discussion of the validity of the information--even if by people not in the field of philosophy--is disappointing.

Tinfoil hattery. Denni☯ 00:16, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

• Delete all the Google results are in Spanish, and may well be about something else entirely, but that doesn't matter much as there's only [59 Google hits] anyway. Delete this not-quite-patent-nonsense-but-still-regular-nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Actually should be deleted as a copyright violation. The entire article is Psicanica.com copied word for word--BirgitteSB 01:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Psicanica changed my life. However, delete. Friday 01:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, advocacy, advertisement, non-notable, copy-vio, etc. Binadot 01:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copy/vio. Hamster Sandwich 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Either Delete or clean up majorly so that it's an article and not an advert/copyvio. The music on the website annoyed me, but that isn't the point. --Stevefarrell 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 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 keep. The IP address, belonging to a company based in Herndon, VA, was not much use in determining whether this was an ad; I recommend against using such conditions in future--please focus on content, not presumed place of origin. The recommendation of a move to Viatical and Life Settlement Association of America seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VLSAA

Delete. Advert. Lacks encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is a industry trade group that has been around since 1994. It seems they are active lobbists. I personally think it would be great if every special interest group giving money to polititions had a NPOV article here. Granted the article does need work.--BirgitteSB 02:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I could be wrong... but I trust the VfD process to work out the right result. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Commment the companies listed by this organization may be all linked financially. I agree with BrigetteSB comment about including groups with political influence. Important to general knowledge. If its just a sales pitch for more companies to join some type of special interest association, I would change my vote to Delete.Hamster Sandwich 03:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete seems like an advert to me, yet I can't be too sure. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the IP address that created it is from Orlando, Florida. :rolleyes: Blatant advertizing. --malathion ^talk 11:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the IP address stuff above is true. Flammifer 14:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keeep Google returns over 1000 hits, including news stories about this group testifng before regualratory athorities. They seem to be an established lobbying organization, in addtition ot other activities. Insurance company sites list membership as a credential. This probably needs to be re-written/expanded with more NPOV including posible critical POV info and mention of lobbying activity. DES 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename Viatical and Life Settlement Association of America. An industry association that has multiple news stories quoting them seems notable enough to justify an article. --Allen3 ^talk 15:04, 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 Speedy delete as verifiable hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Colts

Completely fictional[1] BirgitteSB 00:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. -- Grev -- Talk 02:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grev --EMS | Talk 02:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete I looked in two sports almanac's and online search. Closest thing I could find were the 1946 AAFL's Los Angeles Don's. Hamster Sandwich 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless a source is provided.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Confirmed as nonsense by HamsterSandwich. --Idont Havaname 18:28, 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 Speedy delete as verifiable hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn Silver Stars

Ficticous[2] BirgitteSB 01:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. -- Grev -- Talk 02:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grev --EMS | Talk 02:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense along with all of the other fake teams. Let the team's one (unrelated) Google hit speak for itself... --Idont Havaname 18:29, 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 Speedy delete as this is verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York Mets (NFL)

Fictitious[3] BirgitteSB 01:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. -- Grev -- Talk 02:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --EMS | Talk 02:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Hansamurai 14:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's verifiable in the sense that we can verify that it's nonsense. :-) Speedy delete. --Idont Havaname 18:21, 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 Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Red Sox (NFL)

FicticiousNFL webste BirgitteSB 01:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. -- Grev -- Talk 02:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. [BTW - There was an NFL team that played at Fenway Park in 1933-36 (not 1940-45): the Redskins. In 1937 they moved to Washington DC. Guess what?] --EMS | Talk 02:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Hansamurai 14:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• We can verify that it's nonsense, and we've done that. :-) Speedy delete. --Idont Havaname 18:21, 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 Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Browns (NFL)

Fictitous NFL.com BirgitteSB 01:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoaxster could've picked a year other than the one where not only was a Baltimore Colts team fielded, but the Cleveland Browns moved into the NFL... -- Grev -- Talk
• Stong (if not speedy) Delete --EMS | Talk 02:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this nonsense. Phoenix2 03:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Nice catch, Grev! --Idont Havaname 18:25, 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 Speedy delete as verifiable nonsense/hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Rangers (NFL)

FictitousNFL.com BirgitteSB 01:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. -- Grev -- Talk 02:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete definitely fictious. --EMS | Talk 03:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - what nice nonsense! --Idont Havaname 18:27, 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 Speedied - no factual content by Manning 04:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] California Football Grounds

Whether or not the Callifornia Football Grounds ever existed, the text of the article is fictitous. Reference Los Angeles Colts BirgitteSB 01:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Binadot 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Your search - "California Football Grounds" - did not match any documents." While I don't consider Google the end-all/be-all, I do count on it for pop culture type stuff (e.g. sports history). -- BD2412 ^talk 03:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Same creator as fictional NFL teams and other fictional stadiums. --EMS | Talk 04:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per EMS. --Idont Havaname 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Reminds me of Dr. Zoidberg's RfA nomination... Redwolf24 23:01, 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. Some longstanding editors have made an excellent case for keep, and I have disregarded the votes that are based on appeals to supposed lack of notability as misguided. A few minutes on Google shows that this British performer has had at least one hit single (entered Christmas/New Year 2005 chart at #11, the second highest new entry that week) and was one of the very few black British performers to appear at Live8, Edinburgh. Please be careful when making VfD votes to delete, that your vote is not based solely on your personal ignorance --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal bizzle

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. allmusic has nothing on him. Best quote from the article is "He is expected to be the next best thing but he is not quite there. " Delete Friday 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is not a crystal ball, nor is it a forum for advertisement. Binadot 01:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Binadot --malathion ^talk 11:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proven to meet WP:MUSIC.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Delete, though the picture makes him look quite official.  ;) Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, Lethal Bizzle was featured on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) and Much Music (the Canadian version of MTV). See their webpages. I think that falls under WP: Music (4), though I guess you can debate whether it was featured prominently or not. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.142.59 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-22 22:33:34 UTC
• Delete Fo shizzle. Klonimus 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Featured on the iTunes UK homepage today with an iTMS-exclusive remix, and there's a decent Google result with a delimited search. If someone can spend the time to do a shade of research and make it WP:MUSIC-conformed, why can't it be notable and keep-able? —Neuropedia 08:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Lethal Bizzle is a major part of the UK Garage scene. His single Pow (Forward) was in the UK charts and was a major hit on the underground. He meets at least 3 of the 7 criteria stated on the WP:MUSIC page. Saying that the article is poorly written and needs to be expanded to reflect those things I've stated --Diddy Didds 11:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : NN/Vanity. --Ragib 03:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand He is a major player in UK underground garage scene, recently appeared on Radio 1 rap show with Tim Westwood. --Peteyboo
• Weak keep - a search of the BBC indeed shows he's mentioned a moderate number of times [4], as does a general google. So I don't think this is the usual garage band self publicity, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. If nothing comes of it, wait a couple of months and merge in to Failed rappers who are back working at McDonalds. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. Despite the faintest element of truth, this article is yet another one of a series created by an anon user determined to populate the US with mythical sporting venues and teams. Manning 04:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis Ballgrounds

Can't confirm the St. Louis Ballgrounds didn't exist but text is false. Check out St. Louis Browns (NFL) BirgitteSB 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Please note if you picked any city in America and followed the nome with ballpark you find something that might be what they are refering to. However if you look at the contributions of the creator you will understand it is a hoax--BirgitteSB 02:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The text is not entirely false, just confused and with a few names mangled. Read this excerpt from a page about the park that I think he's refering to, and you'll easily get where the text of the page is coming from:

"Old Sportsman's Park and its predecessors [were] first used as such soon after the Civil War and only a few years after the game was introduced in St. Louis by Jere Fruin in 1860. The first ball park there was built by August Solari in 1871 as the Grand Avenue Ball Grounds. ... Its name was changed to Sportsman's Park in 1876 when it became the home of the charter member National League Club known as the Browns." -[5] exceprted for clarification only

-Harmil 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Added a redirect for the correct name from Grand Avenue Ball Grounds to Sportsman's Park, and added note of the old name to the latter page. I don't think there's any remaining value in this page. -Harmil 02:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The name is subtly wrong and any fix would be a total re-write better done at the correctly named page, anyway -Harmil 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Binadot 01:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by the same person as fictional NFL teams. See the edit history. --EMS | Talk 03:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What the heck is with this vandal? We need to give him a name.. how about the NFL Hoax vandal? lol Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:57, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 15:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Altsounds

This text has been given to wikipedia by the owners of the Altsounds website, a music site established in May 2005, Alexa rating 356,805. Page is self-promotion, delete --nixie 01:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The page requests, "Now, lets get one thing cleared up right away". I agree, let's do that. Seriously, no claim to notability. New site created in May. (edit - May 2004. Please read thoroughly - Altsounds) -Harmil 01:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Altsounds, (who I presume did the "Edit:" bit) the article still says May 2005. So if it isn't factual, change it. --Idont Havaname 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 01:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "So, sign up now and move your band into the next level" OR ELSE!. Hamster Sandwich 03:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a nn website. JamesBurns 08:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, nn from Alexa ranking and Google hits, self-promotion. Altsounds people have linkspammed many band articles (mainly saying "Stream (some song by this band) now at Altsounds.com!"); I soon reported one of them, who was editing as an anon, at WP:VIP, and User:JYolkowski and I reverted over 100 articles that they hit with their links. Their site looks cool, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or self-promote, and JYolkowski and I talked to them about this. --Idont Havaname 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't get this website?? Every time we try and do anything we are getting it deleted. What does Alexa ranking have to do with anything?? We are a quality music resource and can provide people looking up bands on your website with songs, photos, bios and lots more information about these bands that they can't get on your site. Why would you delete a page dedicated to our site????? That makes absolutely no sense, it gives people information about altsounds and what we are and what we do. How is that any different to a band having a page on your site?? Isn't that self promotion too?? I am utterly confused. When I stumbled across your site I spent a good time looking at it and wanted to get involved but everytime I do it gets deleted. Thats no use to me and I am almost at the point where I can't be bothered anymore. Why would you turn away people that are willing to add quality content? *sigh*

Just browsing some more and noticed that Purevolume.com has a page on wikipedia which isn't being considered for deletion. Why is that?? Whats the difference?? And if you say it's because we're not big enough, then doesn't that also violate one of your "commercial interest" policies?? It doesn't say anywhere you have to have an Alexa ranking of greater than x to be allowed on this site. There are so many flaws in your rules. Why do i not understand? I am reading all your policies and posting suggestions and i dont see us in violation of anything...if anything we are totally keeping in spirit with what wikipedia is about.

Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altsounds (talk • contribs)

• • Purevolume is not listed for deletion because major labels use it, and more importantly it has a high Alexa ranking (currently in the 2000s - here is its Alexa info). Other users: please see User talk:Altsounds and User talk:68.38.148.76 for more discussion with this user regarding this. --Idont Havaname 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by geogre. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peach Tree Field

Fictitous Google search BirgitteSB 01:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Chairboy 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Created by same anonymous user that created the phony NFL teams. --EMS | Talk 03:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --malathion ^talk 11:53, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan zuniga

Non-notable vanity page. Recommend delete. Chairboy 02:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I seconde that- must be deleted. Devanjedi 02:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, probable vanity, Geogre's Law. Funny that this guy seems to be a Bizarro version of Markos Zuniga. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--BirgitteSB 02:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV and notability unverifiable --malathion ^talk 11:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Only 22 unique google hits. --Etacar11 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 no consensus (default keep). Scimitar ^parley 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunshine Coast Grammar School

Tagged for out-of-process speedy deletion by Lucky 6.9. Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments and don't bite the newbies. Kappa

• Delete. Substub. Gamaliel 02:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 02:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. This vote will change if the article is substantially expanded/improved with verifiable information. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this school may contain the next Prime Minister of Australia
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, this school may contain the next major WikiVandal. Radiant_>|< 14:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article indicates Aus. location, yet links to a completely unrelated page PMSA. And the next Prime Minister of Australia is going to be Canadian. Nostradamus told me. Hamster Sandwich 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is content-free. --Carnildo 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as totally lacking content. Even the link points a wrong page. That is why I tagged this as a speedy, not because it's a school and not because I'm "biting newbies." Kappa, I respectfully submit that you don't let your desire to keep any and all school articles let you overlook the fact that I voted to keep a school article earlier today. I'd appreciate your retracting that comment. - Lucky 6.9 06:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per schoolcruft. Proto t c 09:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As it stands, this article provides very little information but I would vote to keep a decent stub on this school established in 1997. The School's website advises that the PMSA in this case refers to the Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association established under a 1918 Act of the Queensland Parliament and running a number of schools see [6]. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not Requests for expansion. -- Visviva 11:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be placeholders either. Substubs aren't needed to have articles created. We already have "requested articles" for that. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete boring article, no interesting information, not notable. crap. Dunc|☺ 13:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into school district. — RJH 16:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I see no indication of notability. DES 17:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please someone must have expanded it even tho this isnt the place to request that Yuckfoo 17:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Idont Havaname 18:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted after the expansion of the article. --Idont Havaname 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks good now. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Keep Notable like all the others we've kept. Early votes are not based on the article's present form. CalJW 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not discount others' votes, regardless of when they take place. --Idont Havaname 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It still doesn't look notable or encyclopedic to me, and if other schools of no greater notability have been kept, then i disagree with such decisions. DES 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite, for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on keeping the schools. —RaD Man (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there's still no info of note in the article, which must be for a very good reason. -Splash 18:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school. Klonimus 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly makes it notable? that it is private? That is it is christian? That it has 1100 students? That it was founded in 1997?Or just that it is an actual school? Those seem to be the only claims to notability in the article as it stands. If there are other reasons, do please edit the articel to include them. DES 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia rarely ever deletes school these days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a radical inclusionist in relation to secondary schools, I think those who disagree are acting like King Canute. PatGallacher 23:54, 2005 July 23 (UTC)8
• Delete - to vex irresponsible inclusionists. Mandel 06:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Glad to see Vfd voters taking their responsibilities seriously. Kappa 12:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Like "Keep after rewrite, for the purpose of ending school VfD debates." is any different. Your POV is showing. Niteowlneils 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ending school debates is a legitimate reason for voting, because these debates consume a great deal of time and clog up Vfd. I fail to see how vexing people is a legitimate reason to remove valid content from wikipedia. Kappa 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Vexing irresponsible inclusionists obviously is. And yes, obvious POV. Mandel 16:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable in the article. Vegaswikian 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Title establishes notability. Grace Note 04:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Do I understand you to say that any grammer school is inherently notable? If not, what do you mean? DES 05:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even after re-write, article does NOT establish notability. We don't document every professor and scientist--just those who publish notable papers or produce notable advancements in their field, why would we document every grade school regardless of accomplishment? Niteowlneils 16:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make us the next everything2.com--our credibilty will be shot. Niteowlneils 16:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

We only document the top 10-20% scientists, professors, musicicans, actors, etc. why make schools different? This rampant inclusionism will only serve to make the critics who said 'Wikipedia will collapse under it own weight' right. Do you really want to help cause the death of Wikipedia? Niteowlneils 16:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• People have a scale of notability, and wikipedia cannot hope to cover everyone of average notability. Schools are not people, they are more equivalent to villages, and the consensus is that every village that has ever existed has a place in wikipedia. Since wikipedia aims for comprehensive geographic coverage, there is no reason not to aim for comprehensive coverage of education in each location, in fact they enhance each other. Wikipedia should worry about its credibility with real users, not random page browsers. Kappa 17:04, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Striborg

• Delete Non-notable band. Fails to comply with WP:MUSIC. Forbsey 02:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete above reason. —Tokek 03:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Forbsy. Hamster Sandwich 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm pretty sure "underground" means not notable. Friday 04:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, then recreated as a redirect. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sound Frequency and Emotions

Original research and associated tinfoil hattery. Denni☯ 03:01, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

• Delete Although after reading it, I feel much less dumber than I used to have. Hamster Sandwich 03:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's pseudo-science. MickWest 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless any credible references are found. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Psychoacoustics, for legitimate connections between Sound Frequency and Emotions. Delete current content outright - sounds like an hoax. Peter Grey 16:01, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious persecution by Christians

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Created to parallel Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims, which are both currently on VfD. See those discussions for additional debate.

• 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 03:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These are valid themes, and the Religious persecution by Muslims article may survive VfD. Note that incidents by a group may permit events against minor groups to be listed that otherwise would not be covered. OTOH, this is just a stub, and the whole series needs a lot of work. Also, Religious persecution by Jews is not viable at this time since there is not a community of people willing and able to have it be anything other than an anti-semitic rant. Even so, I would keep this one unless all of its "sister" pages are removed. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The persecution of any identifiable group by any other group is valid historical reportage. This article needs Help and a solid effort to edit and expand it. In fact, I may take a crack at this personally, and invite any suggestions and help that you as wikipedians can offer. Certainly attrocities have been commited by almost any identifiable religious group, excused by their own belief in a superior ethic or mandate from a preternatural force. In fact, the lack of this kind of behaviour is so exceptional in human society and civilization, it warrants nay it BEGS a separate article " Major Religious Groups Who Never Persecuted Other People". That would be a tough one to research. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Wikipedia does not need to succumb to religious whitewashing. Persecutions by religious organizations are very real events in history. --Tokek
• Strong Keep persecution by Christians is a known fact of history. I was surprised this article is so short, as Christians since Constantine I's reign to the present day have persecuted non-Christians in many different forms. Christians have persecuted Pagans, Jews, Muslims, other denominations of Christianity, atheists, and others throughout their almost 2000 year history. Revolución 04:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• I was reading about Christian warmongering in Lithuania just yesterday. Keep, in the hope that somebody with knowledge and effort will do a much-needed revision. -- Hoary 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Vote Pending VFD on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - This was not created as some sort of Point, and it did should not be seen as such. It was created to be part of a series, and not to disrupt. I was relying on others to chip in, but barely anyone helped. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Historically relevant. --malathion ^talk 11:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the whinging Christians do about being poor and oppressed they are surprisingly good at oppressing those who aren't infected with their virus. Dunc|☺ 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's just going to need some incredible effort to keep it neutral. --Several Times 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete incorrect usage of religious persecution, content is more properly dealt with by other articles. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as very important, though difficult, historical topic, already touched upon by article Coercion. --Mario 16:24, 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 16:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. This has potential, I think... Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it will take vigilance to keep NPOV, but a worthy subject. Themindset 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep this please it is relevent Yuckfoo 17:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- not only is it a well-recognised historical subject, it is extensive, and therefore merits documentation. Must be kept non-POV, however. Jdhowens90 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although comments about the vigilance needed to maintain NPOV are quite true. ~ WCFrancis 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, just like its two partners. If you have a problem with its current state, fix it. Shem^(talk) 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)} 00:55, 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)
  • • Agree Strongly with BD2412 on this issue. I will make no further contributions to these related article until such time as they are merged. I suggest only editors that can retain a non-perjoritive stance be allowed to work on this material. Hamster Sandwich 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Like I said on the other votes, if we keep one and delete another it would ruin the whole point of the series and make Wikipedia look extremely biased.Heraclius 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, not disruptive (we have similar articles for other religions), ergo no real reason to delete. Almafeta 02:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as with "Persecution by Muslims" and "Persecution by Jews." I make this vote a strong one because I have been persecuted by Christians, and understand the need for dispassionate discussion of this topic. Xoloz 04:29, 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
• Strong keep -- despite what other pro-delete people have said about POV and edit-wars, if W~paedia is seen as biased, especially towards a "Christians can do no wrong" line, then there will be edit-wars on every page, by those who know Christian sinners. Keep and then audit it weekly to remove the cruft, spam, and hate-mail. Sooner or later things will settle down and it will give somewhere for the nuts (and the people who create series of articles about hoax NFL teams) to hand out--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (forgot to sign) crazyeddie 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Incognito 17:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Religious persecution by Christians is a legitimate subject. Besides, as a proponent of Christian beliefs I believe this article will prove that the scriptural evidence in favour of persecuting non-Christians is slim and contradictory to main Christian tenets.--Germen 11:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Dv 15:01, July 22, 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) 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews, 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 23:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These "religious persecution by" articles are only going to turn into POV fests.LokiCT 02:07, 23 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 02:16, 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 02:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : As I voted delete for the article about jews. This kind of article will add nothing to wikipedia but POV debates and trolling.--Revas 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only 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? Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV and vandal magnet. JamesBurns 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for precisely same reasons I've supported keeping the other articles in this series. Babajobu 10:55, 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 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, controversial, but important historical topic Salsb 00:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -asx- 05:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No idea why this and the other articles were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Roman Catholics, or by Quakers or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said on the Muslim one up for deletion it's a POV magnet. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Christian groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable. gren 16:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV magnet. --Vsion 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quarternary (album)

This article was created by the same anonymous editor that created the fictional NFL teams and stadiums. It reads like another hoax. Delete, speedily if possible. --EMS | Talk 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I dug some dirt on this when I looked into all the contributions by the creator. There was some sort of special EP released as a mail-order off the 1994 Mötley Crüe album. It was called Quaternary (slight misspelling). I imagine most of the test is incorrect because I found conflicting info. I left a note on the Mötley Crüe talk page asking someone to look into. Hopefully this article will get straightened out--BirgitteSB 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Research and if it's not a hoax, clean-up. Otherwise, delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax; allmusic.com has never heard of it and it surely would have done if it existed. -Splash 18:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A HISTORY OF THE AFRICAN-OLMECS: BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF AMERICA FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE PRESENT ERA

if an article is to be written on this topic, it has to conform to other Wikipedia articles. Phoenix2 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this article seems a possible copyvio t me, but I couldn't find the source, it's extremely pov, and I think it's a joke. I'm mexican and never heard of "african-olmecs". drini ☎ 04:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

besides, all the refernces to "Barton" are just to a group of webpages created by a single person, probably the creator of this entry. no real references given. drini ☎ 04:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have heard that Olmecs were Africans. I am convinced there was some African presence in the Americas before Columbus. Perhaps it is notable enough to have an article? Of course this may need a serious rewrite and cleanup. here is a site I found that offers an interesting view: http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm Revolución 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, rewrite, rename, and expand Redirect to Pre-Columbian African presence in the Americas. Revolución 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is the title of a book by Paul Alfred Barton, thus the references to Barton. If the title were lower-cased and the article made to be a discussion of the Barton book, then I vote keep. The idea of African-Olmecs is not a new idea, the stone heads of the ancient Olmecs have been described by many as appearing (at least to them) as having African features, and a Google search for "african olmecs" returns 218 unique hits. John Barleycorn 05:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this article has a potential to become an excellent article about the African presence in the Americas. I don't think it should only be about this book. Revolución 05:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a title like African presence in the Americas, African presence in the Americas before Columbus, Pre-Columbian African presence in the Americas, History of Africans in the Americas, African exploration of the Americas. Tell me which title sounds best. Revolución 05:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, unreferenced, possible copyvio. JamesBurns 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' this, but the hypothesis is notable as pseudo-history supported by a lot of wishful thinking, and I may reconsider the vote if the article is completely rewritten to reflect this and moved to a different title. Uppland 12:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, completely from an Afrocentrism POV, looks like a copyvio of a book review, from a source favorable to the author. DES 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, but seems not to be a copyvio... Also, POV and all things said above. --Neigel von Teighen 17:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks dodgy, as above. William M. Connolley 22:58:57, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
• Whilst I am logged-in, has anyone considered asking the author what hisr sources are, before condemning himr ?--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is, I presume, a copyvio from this book. Not having it available, I can't be sure however. -Splash 18:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not against having articles on controversial books, but this is hopelessly POV. One point sticks out, what do they mean by "Afroid"? Ultimately we are all Afroids. PatGallacher 00:00, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
• Delete, on the above grounds. IINAG 19:56, July 25, 2005 (GMT)
• Delete baseless --218.41.113.27 13:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, total POVism
• Quick Delete - for reasons stated above -- The Time Killer
• Delete, advertisement. This article promotes this website which promotes this book written by the owner of that website, which repeats the Montalvano myth of "Calafia, Black Queen of the Baja" as true despite that it's known to be 15th century fantasy literature. Cite: [[7]], amoung several thousand others - Mantalvano's works were 15th century Spanish fantasy literature, on a par with Orlando Furioso which came out around that same time. Delete, it is advertisement, original research, and pseudohistory. If it must be saved, the author should re-post it to wikiinfo.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zero return

Non-notable band BirgitteSB 03:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable. Unless someone has a discography and a list of past tours on these "obscure" musicians who "do stupid things". Hamster Sandwich 04:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 04:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band. JamesBurns 09:03, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ANTI-HERO

Delete Shameless vanity plug of new band (less than a year) drini ☎ 04:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Band vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Notable. Yet. I'm from the same town, and I've never heard of them or seen their posters. Hamster Sandwich 04:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. blatant self-promotion. --Madchester 05:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the worst band vanity I have ever seen on this site. This is beyond acceptable. - Lucky 6.9 06:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I had an edit conflict with Lucky and I was actually gonna write "I've never seen such terrible band vanity" on the page... Redwolf24 06:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! Great minds really do think alke! - Lucky 6.9 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN/Band vanity. --Ragib 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as band vanity. --Several Times 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Horrible. --Etacar11 00:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is clearly self-promotion. IINAG 19:56, July 25, 2005 (GMT)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 02:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brass monkey

This is another urban legend. There are plenty ([8], [9], [10]) of sources which adequately discredit this myth. Denni☯ 04:22, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

• Delete - just an urban legend. --InformationalAnarchist 04:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Urban legend, c'mon people. - Chairboy 04:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep following the complete rewrite of the article. Nice job. - Chairboy 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• While this seems deletable, there is a notable band Brass Monkey, of which Martin Carthy was a member. If I can find some good info I'll look into writing an article on them. -R. fiend 04:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is a page on Brass Monkey which it seems needs some cleanup. Redirect there, and clean that up. I'll help. -R. fiend 04:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, after rewrite. -R. fiend 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The rewrite seems to follow the etymology of the term and give an interesting and informative desription. Hamster Sandwich 09:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Brass Monkey. Keep rewritten article. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't need to redirect, the Wiki automagically fixes capatilisation in this case =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• That being said, delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, someone did a very serious rewrite that is absolutely amazing. Speedy keep now that it's been done. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beastie Boys Delete Keep after rewrite. Dammit, now I've got that song in my head... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Haven't looked through the history of the page, but the referenced and informative article I read is very close to a model page on a folk etymology topic. Suspect it's been revised deeply since proposal; as it stands now, can't figure why it's here. Should also mention the cocktail, though. Smerdis of Tlön 13:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The page has changed significantly, and the quality is much better now (at the time of initial vfd, it stated urban legend as fact), but the fact remains that it is a non-notable UL. A well written debunking of the non-notable is still non-notable. An additional concern is that the article text is now very very similar to the Snopes article. Not word for word, but not by much. - Chairboy 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep in changed from. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong keep. As mentioned above, perhaps this is a rewrite, but it is thoroughly researched and rather well written (aside from the odd typo). Themindset 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the piece of folk etomology debunked in this article is notable enough to merit inclusion. It was at one time a widely used phrase, and may still be encounterd in historical fiction among other places. DES 17:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I suspect if we delete the article, then a new (erroneous) copy will spring up again. It's obscure but probably marginally worth including; the phrase is not uncommon, and far better to have a sensible article explaining what it isn't rather than nothing. We have a page on The Whole Nine Yards, which discusses the folk etymologies; same concept, really. Shimgray 17:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, after rewrite by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Marvelous rewrite. Xoloz 04:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- clear explanation of well-known phrase or expression, without being POV. Not suitable for dictionary; undoubtedly something people will look up. Ought to be here. --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I always use the phrase 'Brass Monkey weather'. --Richhil 16:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nick 09:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Now perfectly legitimate article questioning the myth. PatGallacher 00:08, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
• Keep. The original nomination was sound, but the completely rewritten article is an example of Wikipedia's best.-gadfium 22:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very nice re-write. =) Xaa 02:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Disambiguation sounds like a good idea, if someone wants to do it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The B-Sides

Non-notable vanity page. Chairboy 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • WAITING The facts of this band are changing by the minute, now it says they formed in 2001 see page history. If they are notable I'll change to a keep. Hamster Sandwich 05:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Been around for yrs, and still no label has signed them? --Madchester 05:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment

Could you guys take it a bit easy on me. It's my first time working with this and I admit I was nervous at first. We all make minor typos at times. Especially when we're nervous. User:Pythagoreanman 2:14 AM EDT July 21st 2005

• Comment. All Music Guide has records of a band called The B-Sides who have released albums and EP's [11]. However it isn't the same band as listed in the article and features a former member of the Squirrel Nut Zippers. I will rewrite this article this evening mentioning the original subject at the bottom of the article unless evidence can be shown under WP:MUSIC guidelines that they warrant an article on their own. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I guess you guys win. You're missing out on an awesome band. Too bad this site is full of bureaucracy.
  • Comment If you can provide some verifiable evidence that this band is notable, and not just a local phenominon, you could probably get your inclusion. So far you have 2 votes to delete, One on the fence (me) and a kind offer of assistance from Capitalroadstar. I think you're either blowing smoke, or not to confident in the actual nescessity of your articles inclusion. Be Bold Your user page is new, and I can tell you as a new Wiki user myself that the onus here is to get articles included, not turfed out. As long as this "awesome band" should be of general interest to a more or less worldwide audience, write about them. If they have members from previously notable bands, probably a good sign. If they have toured internationally, even better. Have they released music on a format other than CDR? More and more interesting. I hope that my comment is takken in the spirit in which it is offered; as a person trying to help another person. Good luck Pythagoreanman! Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• I have rewritten the article as promised. Keep. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • Keep Good work Capitalistroadster, but i think this is a completely different band than the one originally described in the first draft of this article. I vote keep because they seem somewhat notable, might link with other chapel hill bands. Hamster Sandwich 09:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thorns Among Our Leaves 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I count three different bands all called the B-Sides. I'm not sure any single one is above my minimum level of notability, but combined they are. If nothing else, the article can untangle the name confusion. Still needs work, but has potential for being encyclopedic. --A D Monroe III 19:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Improvement?. Why not add all three bands too the list and order formed and that type? like AD Monroe III said, to sort out the confusion?

-User:pythagoreanman

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Championship Wrestling

Not too sure about this one. "American Championship Wrestling" gets 3,420 google hits, however, the article specifically mentions Utah, which when added to the google search, only turns up 30 hits. The googling is definately a problem, for instance, there is a "North American Championship Wrestling" and a "American Championship Wrestling Association", etc. I am actually going to Abstain from voting, but another editor suggested that this was VFDable, so here it is. func(talk) 05:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 09:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN.TruthCrusader
• Abstain - I edited the article after it was created using inflammatory and factually incorrect material for the ACW-Utah entry that was deleted several weeks back. The "(an)other editor" who suggested the deletion is a known disrupter/troll of Wikipedia under the guise of being a "white hat", and had a hand in creating the material used at the deleted entry and the original entry for this page, but that's a subject for a different rant. I'm not incredibly opposed to the article being deleted, but I have chosen to provide the relevant facts regarding the page's creation and suggestion for deletion, and I would hope that those would be taken into consideration. Chadbryant 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, "in negotiations" for television sounds euphemistic. Xoloz 04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• DELETEorganization does not exist.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per CSD rule A7 (vanity). jni 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan seah

Non-notable vanity page. 28 matches on google, none appear to be for this guy. Chairboy 05:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable. Unless someone points out where he's been published. Hamster Sandwich 05:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete under the new CSD for vanity pages. =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The face shop

Non-notable outside of Asia, as far as I can determine via Google. At best, this company (if it exists) is clearly not known outside of Korea, and this substub is not likely to be improved to be at all useful in the near future. I thus propose deletion. NicholasTurnbull 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Just because its not notable outside a current country doesn't mean its not notable (otherwise Macy's would have to get deleted or Mall of America). I think 9130 google hits seems notable until other evidence is given. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 09:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It is a fairly high-profile retail operation in South Korea. -- Visviva 11:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. With 240 branches in South Korea, it is clearly notable. Nothing borderline about it. Has any of you googled for it in Korean, in order to get a real hit count? Uppland 11:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

37,800. [12] -- Visviva 13:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, for reasons outlined by Sasquatch and Uppland. -- Lochaber 11:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, against my better judgement. I'd vote to delete the whole company if I could. Cosmetics, ugh.  :-) -- Visviva 13:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Google counts. Xoloz 04:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since non-notable outside of a whole continent is not the same as non-notable (i.e. deleting this would probably be systemic bias). However, move to The Face Shop. -Splash 18:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable lipsticks Klonimus 02:53, 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. 10 delete votes, 3 Keep, 1 Cleanup, even including possible sockpuppetry. khaosworks 01:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chan win hon

Non-notable secondary school teacher. He may be a good teacher and his students may admire him, but that doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia article on his own. khaosworks 05:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He seems a nice person, but this seems a vanity article. Joyous (talk) 05:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Is Userfy an option for an anon. user? -maclean25 05:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this was created by Mr Chan himself, but by a student of his. The grammar and structure of the sentences suggests this strongly. See related Vfd at Jonathan seah. --khaosworks 05:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable. The phrase "locally renowned" speaks for itself. Nice pictures though. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While my mathematical expertise is not great, I suspect that if his mathematical contributions were as notable as claimed, he would be at a university not a secondary school. Capitalistroadster 06:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

you all suxx0rs and he r0xx0rs what related vfd at jonathan seah???? non existant thing you talking about there!

• unsigned comment by anon user 203.120.68.68 (talk · contribs) --khaosworks 09:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete After a long and bitter fight the principal of this schoolOng Teck Chin got in. As predicted now the teachers are getting individual articles.--Porturology 12:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN! LOL, he "owns two Babies." That's classic. Thorns Among Our Leaves 17:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Porturology. But the "A devout Christian, he is married to a wife and owns Two Babies" sentence belongs in BJAODN! --Idont Havaname 17:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, high school teachercruft. --Etacar11 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is quite obvious that Professor Chan's contributions to the field of Mathematics indeed are quite significant, and we should acknowledge and appreciate him and his work, despite the fact that he is a teacher. The profile, if expanded would be quite useful.User:202.156.2.50 --18:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : He is a professor that has contributed something notable (the human compass). Furthermore, if I'm not wrong, Singapore is a country extremely strong in mathematics. Being locally renown must be saying something.

• unsigned comment by anon user 203.117.66.242 (talk · contribs) --khaosworks 09:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. --*drew 10:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a highly biased article about someone who is not significant enough to merit a page in an international encylopaedia. Singopo 10:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: After reading this article, I tend to believe that this person is of notable background. I strongly recommend that this page be edited to perhaps include more information, which would render it more useful.

• unsigned comment by anon user 203.123.21.145 (talk · contribs) (note contributions). --khaosworks 10:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't it strange that this unsigned comment stating that "After reading this article, I tend to believe that this person is of notable background..." came from 203.123.21.145 – the same IP address that started the article? Singopo 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Hamstersanonymous 16:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up It would be good if it were cleaned up and reorganized (Unsigned vote by 203.123.20.7 (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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mnenta

delete as unverifiable and non-notable Trovatore 05:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Might be a Dicdef but i can't find anything to verify this. Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Mnenta. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone provides a source. Paul August ☎ 14:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Oleg Alexandrov 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kinser 22:22, 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 Speedied by MacGyverMagic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Alhasan

This is a resume. It qualilfies for deletion for being non-notable and vanity. Tobycat 06:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 06:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete does not assert importance. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Resume/NN/Vanity. --Ragib 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete with no assertion of notability other than being an engineer. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:09, 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. Woohookitty 07:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yume Kitasei

This new article tells the tale of a recent high school graduate's political exploits in a school club. Not-notable, not verifiable, vanity, and probably a hoax. Tobycat 06:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Borders on being an attack page. I don't believe it to be a hoax. I've removed the attack element from the page, but it doesn't make her notable. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Save it for the year book. Hamster Sandwich 06:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No evidence of notability other than involvement in a high school organisation. Capitalistroadster 07:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teen vanity/hoax. -- Hoary 08:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. JamesBurns 09:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 16:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Nibbles

Out of context text about non-notable movie. Not on imdb Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because it lacks context does not mean it merits VfD (unless it is very short). This sounds like a tom and jerry episode, and i asked the author earlier to clarify. -- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 08:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable unless a listing of who did animation, voices, and production is included. Hamster Sandwich 09:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what the hell is this?--Porturology 12:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There's a whole slew of these now, unsure how encyclopaedic it is to have an article for individual Tom and Jerry episodes —Neuropedia 17:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as one of several totally bogus and totally bizarre hoax articles by this same vandal. He just keeps posting these things, reverts deletion notices and is generally being a pain. I've posted the IP over in the VIP page as a moderate problem, but I'm thinking of moving this whack job up a notch to "severe." - Lucky 6.9 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Google for "Where's Nibbles" "birthday film" gives 0 results. Google for "Where's Nibbles" Tom Jerry gives 1 irrelevant result. [13] has a list of Tom and Jerry episodes with Nibbles, but doesn't list "Where's Nibbles". —PrologFan {Talk} 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. -- Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/unverified. --Etacar11 00:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon-Fridge

Not notable enough, not to mention the site is dead.-- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 07:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Delete. Non-notable. Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Also, the domain is dead. Hosterweis 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, advertising. —PrologFan {Talk} 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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 guess what?  Grue  19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shape of my Addiction

Non-notable band. Possible vanity/self-promotion. --Ragib 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN/Vanity. --Ragib 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Allmusic.com article and their website said that they are giving their EP away at gigs. No evidence of the promised album as yet. While they may meet WP:MUSIC in the future, they don't appear to currently. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Incidentally, the shape of my addiction looks suspiciously like a computer monitor. Hamster Sandwich 09:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:42, 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, looks like a no consensus... not quite sure through all the jumble but, keep. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sheep vote

What's this doing on Wikipedia, especially in the Wikipedia namespace?-- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 07:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Lord only knows, but it's making at least one user go ballistic. --Ardonik.talk()^* 08:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It at one point was a personal attack against that user; I removed those references. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We seem to have lost him anyway. It was a noble effort. --Ardonik.talk()^* 09:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is "especially in the Wikipedia namespace" because it is a wikipedia phrase, e.g. it isnt encyclopedic. Bluemoose 09:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that these phrases are fair and notable enough. I'm trying to work out if this vote that I'm casting is a sheep vote or a wolf vote. DarthVader 11:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see any vote on an unnotable school. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it only leads to incivility and has no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. Not only that, but it's a neologism--I haven't heard it anywhere before yesterday. This isn't exactly widely used slang like "cruft" or "vanity" here, and it's far more abusive. Meelar (talk) 13:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Not Speedy Delete Attack page? Where? Still not a CSD by any means. I've undeleted it and reopened VfD.  Grue  15:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • My final vote is Transwiki to Meta or failing that, keep.  Grue  06:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Meelar. I guess that makes this a "wolf vote." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to m:polls are evil or transwiki to Meta. --MarkSweep 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if we do keep this, we need to rewrite the "Wolf Vote" section to be NPOV. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as subtle attack page. There is no excuse for this material on Wikipedia, for any reason. I have no idea what the person was thinking when they created this page but this page will only lead to hostilities, especially if namecalling is done (as it has been done already). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Author of article points out in an edit summary that this was "Original Research". -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to humor section on meta. There's no way to distinguish between sheep votes and normal votes. It'll only cause huge shouting matches. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Talrias. It should be noted that Boothy443 has redirected his name in his signature to this page. This page has no significant history, being created only a month ago, and I have never heard this term used in Wikipedia. Besides, the veracity is difficult to prove, and it is non-notable. Just because one user "coins" a term does not mean it deserves its own "Wikipedia:" page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle. I agree with all of the above. --Carnildo 21:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta, which has as part of its scope sociological discussions of the problems of wikis. James F. (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as a neologism invented a few weeks ago, that will only cause fights for no purpose. What was the creator thinking? -Splash 00:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notable...if you consider Wikitalk meaningful... freestylefrappe 00:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC).
• Keep and move to article space. Noted phenomenon, not just on Wikipedia. Almafeta 02:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Baaaa--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It does seem to be an attack page, I don't think it's possible to distinguish between normal votes and sheep votes. -- Joolz 09:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer it deleted but if there is no consensus to do so transwiki would be my second option. -- Joolz 15:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - irrelevant and opinionated, liable to lead to more name-calling, accusations and other strife - Skysmith 09:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, irrelevant and does not benefit the community in any manner. The "wolf vote" section is beyond pointless, also. --Sn0wflake 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, if we allow nonsense like that to take over the Wikipedia namespace, the consequences can be disastrous. - Sikon 10:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta. There is a page devoted to these sort of insights there. Sarge Baldy 12:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Note that similar term actualy exists. SYSS Mouse 13:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. Was already speedied twice as such. It may be a valid topic (as a subsection of meta, or part of WP:POINT or something) but the current version exists mainly to attack a user that is making some controversial votes on WP:RFA. Radiant_>|< 14:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki to Meta. The term helped defuse and focus an RfA discussion (which was precisely why the page was created. It proved to work to the best of Wikipedia. Please consider this before assuming bad faith.) This page has been on Wikipedia for a month and several people contributed to it, including some experienced and respected users. None of them saw any problem with the page as such. I see the concerns, but I see no factual evidence for them. The "personal attack" has been deleted. (BTW, it wasn't a baseless attack, but basically what Boothy443 said him/herself, when asked why he/she opposed all votes on RfA. However, I should have provided a diff for that, and now I can't find it.) — Sebastian (talk) 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC) and 01:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems pointless, and could be considered POV. Robert McClenon 18:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh Themindset 02:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV attack page. JamesBurns 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It doesn't seem to be an attack page anymore. I really don't see why it should be deleted. The term is very clever and this article should be kept. DarthVader 06:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because so many people above vote to as well. ~~~~ 14:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Meta where it rightfully belongs and delete. →Raul654 20:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of material belongs on Meta. --Michael Snow 01:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta. And don't put personal attacks on it anymore :( --Phroziac (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, of course. there's nothing wrong with it. the term came up on the rfa talkpage, and somebody (not the "coiner") documented it. dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of term until 10 mins ago. Seems more designed to cause civil unrest. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 22:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If kept, which it shouldn't be, it belongs on meta as terminology (see m:Deletionist, m:Mergist, etc). Hedley 23:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure where it should be moved to. I don't see this as POV, but rather explaining something that happens in voting around wkik land. Vegaswikian 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, serves a purpose, is instructive. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transfering to metawiki would be just fine too. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created for the purpose of making a point, no redeeming value. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta. It does serve a purpose, because sheep voting actually does occur. It simply doesn't belong on the Wikipedia namespace. --Scimitar ^parley 15:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta. We have stuff like that there. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, BJAODN, Deep Pit - just don't keep it or transwiki - Useless concept to attack those agreeing with the majority. - º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Moving to Meta sounds good. --Carnildo 18:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta. I fear I may be sheep voting, but in my opinion, this has been the best suggested option. Ryan 06:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with the above votes. Baaaaaaa! --Andylkl ^(talk) 14:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if you want to indulge in wikisociology, take it to meatball. --fvw* 07:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though possibly not where it is just now. Oh, and Baaaaaahhhhh. Leithp 08:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand considerably. This could be an opportunity to try and improve the general quality of votes cast in many forums (although mainly the RfA), but it must be expanded and developed to acquire an educational value, and the redeeming value so properly mentioned by Meelar. Redux 01:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki Havn't heard of this term other than in refrence to boothy. Not a common term IMO, but Meta seems to be quite fine with having this sort of thing--Tznkai 14:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to another namespace (article space, most probably). IJzeren Jan 12:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, lol. - Mailer Diablo 20:20, 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 KEEP, unanimously apart from nom. -Splash 02:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts

I don't think this article is sutable for an encyclopedia. I wish to Delete it Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Very well known song although the lyrics should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 08:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Hamster Sandwich 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have now cleaned up the article adding a reference to Magical Mystery Tour and deleting the lyrics. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I guess. I was surprised to find there was already an article on this song when writing coconut shy article. I don't have a sense of where the usual cutoff for including songs is. I wouldn't have thought this one was a particularly significant, but then again there seems to be connections to it from a number of different directions. -- Solipsist 12:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable song. I see no reason why this isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. 23skidoo 14:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Clean-up. This is definitely encyclopedic. -snarfle.- Thorns Among Our Leaves 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please you cant just delete things just because Yuckfoo 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I cleaned it up a bit. Once the VfD process is over (assuming it's kept), the article should be moved to I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts. --FuriousFreddy 18:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as others above --Yondir 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the cleaned version. Notable song. Exir, please note that Wikipedia has wider inclusion criteria than regular encyclopedias. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, well-written. -Willmcw 23:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's not only a song, it's also a phrase/saying. Either way, I see no reason for it not to be kept. TheBeansprout 23:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major hit in its time, stuck in the mind of everyone who ever heard it, well remembered today, significant cultural reference. Is it properly spelled "lovely" or "loverly?" Danny Kaye pronounced it something like love-a-ly, definitely three syllables. (trot to CD cabinet) My copy of a net-very-authoritative CD says "lovely." Singing roll-er-bowl-a-ball-a-penny-a-pitch! Well, that's done it—it's going to be going through my head for the rest of the evening. Danny Kaye couldn't possibly have been the first to have recorded it, could he? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This song was a top 40 in the 40s, and has been played since. That's because even 60 years later, you can't get it out of your head. My vote is for a Speedy Keep because there hasn't been a single vote to delete in over ten votes. Almafeta 02:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (sheep) (It rhymes) --SockpuppetSamuelson 07:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to proper capitalization. Especially since if this is deleted it will only be recreated using the awful songstub template. -R. fiend 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'll take "signs that VfD has gone too far" for 500, Alex CanadianCaesar 23:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Informative article. I can envision someone looking up novelty songs in Wikipedia. I often look up all kinds of historic media in Wikipedia. WpZurp 16:50, 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.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justin bardin

This "notable Internet personality" looks more like an unexceptional teenage "Something Awful" participant. Vanity. -- Hoary 08:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN Vanity. Newgrounds involvement dosen't make him notable. And comb your hair! Hamster Sandwich 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. JamesBurns 09:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable (although claims to be notable on the page) and vanity. DarthVader 11:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and needless links. --Several Times 14:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: 208.35.82.87 deleted this VfD page. -- Hoary 06:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Comment. I authored this page about him because I feel that after viewing his work, he has potential. Also I go to Something Awful and his name doesn't show up there at all. I guess you could erase the page, but it would save someone a lot of work if he turned out to be a highly notable Internet writer later on. I say we wait and see, which could take some time. -- Destructo man 7:02, July 31st, 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.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brocore

Possible neologism, unable to determine from (sparse) content. --Alan Au 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Pure BS. Hamster Sandwich 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rubbish. DarthVader 11:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• "BROCORE IS BROCORE, A POPULAR TYPE OF MUSIC. A BLEND OF HARDCORE MUSIC AND HARDCORE MUSIC." So it's popular yet I never heard of it and it's a mix of two the same music types and the article is in all caps. Delete as nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.  Grue  19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hana Kitasei

Advertising, it would seem, for an obscure teenage actress. This does say that she's one of four hundred plus actors who've played in a musical; the link given in the article tells us nothing and actually looks like a freebie advertising opportunity that Hana Kitasei (or agent) hasn't bothered to fill out. -- Hoary 08:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn teen promo. JamesBurns 09:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn actress vanity. --Etacar11 00:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  19:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Saling

Probably new user test, vanity in any case. I recommend delete or userfy. --Alan Au 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Not too notable. DarthVader 11:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be self-promotion as user made no other edits according to his contributions list. I'd be happy to retrieve it for userfying if he decides to edit more regularly. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shoplifters Pty. Ltd.

Non-notable high-school band, formed this year. jni 09:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

fine delete it then (unsigned comment by Mr Brightside)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 19:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 02:59, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber shock

This entry is not encyclopedic, so need an huge rewrite, but I don't see references of this book. Amazon has an author with this name but it write about dinosaures, and google no hits about his title. Considering also the style of article, IMHO is a vanity page of a non notable schoolboy Cate 09:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. --malathion ^talk 12:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a synopsis from a nn book. JamesBurns 03:01, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kay Fong

Slanderous / nonsense text An An 10:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete An An 10:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. You probably should have left the article the way it was and then you should have nominated it for a speedy delete. DarthVader 10:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that next time. Sorry. An An 13:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Guh --malathion ^talk 12:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Would the next admin reading this please speedy immediately - abusive, with personal contact details --Doc (?) 12:43, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LCR

Advertising for NN nightclub. smoddy 10:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it's worth mentioning, but not on its own page. Any info can easily be incorporated into the main University of East Anglia piece. Angmering 12:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Several Times 14:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dont delete - its a factual page about my Uni club - Matt Riley
• "Probably one of the best nights out you will ever have out." is not factual. Neither is "Definatly worth a visit!". If you can write about it on the University of East Anglia piece without all the promotion, maybe this material will be worth keeping around. --Several Times 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo for a nn student club. JamesBurns 03:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete LCR is a common phrase in electronics design indicating inductance (L), capacitance (C) and resistance (R). These are commonly used in combinations to form filter networks. It is a common topic to those who understand filters and a common question for those who do not. This page could serve a possibly more widespread and diverse audience by addressing this topic instead of the university club it currently references.[[User:AB|AB] 03:01, 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. No consensus. As usual I leave it up to the editors to arrive at a consensus on how to proceed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arfa Karim Randhawa

"[T]he youngest person ever to successfully pass the MCP exam". Not notable enough. Uppland 11:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Move, merge, rename and redirect as per Jerzy below. Uppland 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete too trivial. There are tons of MCP's--I've known a few dozen myself, and their magazine claims readership of 996,000. Being the youngest/oldest/fattest/tallest/shortest/etc among them is no big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Microsoft Certified Professional. Would make a useful little addition to that page, however this page has little hope of being extended. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Talk:Microsoft Certified Professional/Arfa Karim Randhawa, overwrite the resulting rdr into rdr to Microsoft Certified Professional, lk to the talk subpage from the talk page, and use the text as a source for a line or 'graph in MCP -- basically agreeing with Zeimusu. (Being the y'gest MCP at 9 is far different from being the y'gest MCP.) Keeping rdr is crucial. I got here after reading her new (and misplaced) entry on List of people by name: Ar, saying "not another damn bright kid", and coming to the article and then VfD to do my due diligence before trashing the entry. (I think i'm still going to do that, since LoPbN is for those who do or should have WP bios.) But she's getting press notice that IMO is substantial enuf for a footnote, and (besides helping a few users soon) the rdr to MCP will facilitate in various ways our becoming aware of any need to reconsider: assuming she doesn't burn out, and if & when she accomplishes something that manages to overcomes the inevitable suspicion that she got her MCP the way at least one South Asian grad student must have gotten their score on the TOEFL and their resulting North American graduate assistantship. IMO there's reason to hope she'll deserve a WP bio in 10-15 years, maybe sooner, and preservation of the text of this premature bio should both help us judge when it's time & give us a head start on writing the ready-for-prime-time bio.
  --Jerzy·t 20:33, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Microsoft Certified Professional per Zeimusu; little chance of expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Starblind. There are nearly a million of them! -Splash 18:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN/Vanity. Trivial "achievement". --Ragib 23:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Duk as copyvio. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "PC Tools"

Advertising. smoddy 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted after listing at WP:CP--Duk 04:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• It is the listing of a company like Microsoft, this entry ties in with the article for Spyware. Also see [14] --62.252.192.8 12:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment clearly it is not like Microsoft since MS is a multinational corporation, whereas this is smaller their website. It does however claim to be a global leader. Dunc|☺ 13:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• A straight copy of the copyrighted advertising blurb on the company's web site. Copyright Judo applied. Uncle G 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT you'd think this violate trademarks held by Symantec (which bought Central Point Software, which made a utility package called "PC Tools")... 132.205.44.43 19:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising and vanity. - Sikon 10:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, HOWEVER there exists an utility called PC Tools, created in the 1980s for MS-Dos, that was one of the first multifunctional DOS shells, a contemporary of Norton Commander v1.0, and predating WordPerfect menu. That would be a worthwhile topic. Radiant_>|< 14:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yujiro Fujiwara

not yet a not notable person. seems a vanity page Cate 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, following new vanity policy. --Several Times 14:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:03, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Engineering and Computer Science

This is more of a dicdef than an article. Doubt it could be extended any further.

Delete or merge with computer science. --R.Koot 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Computer science does an adequate job explaining the differences between CS and CE. The names of these majors seem school-specific anyway. (At my school, for example, CE is done through the college of engineering and is part of the department of electrical engineering, rather than being done through the CS dept or its college.) --Idont Havaname 17:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, because I don't think it's possible to merge to two separate articles . Ensure both the CS & Comp-E articles explain the differences between the two, and leave it at that, I'd say. My university does the same thing as Idont Havaname's, incidentally. The Literate Engineer 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. There's no content on that page. We've already got articles on CS, CE, and several hundred colleges. --Quuxplusone 00:01, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ITYLLBC

Dicdef of acronym used on non notable bbs Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had marked this as a speedy, but I suppose somebody changed it. --Several Times 16:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to me this meets the qualifications for Speedy. ~ WCFrancis 18:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's mostly nonsense. Tobycat 20:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn acronym. JamesBurns 03:04, 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 move and merge with Newt (disambiguation). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newt (name)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Descendall 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — disambiguation page. Could be renamed to Newt (disambiguation). — RJH 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• As a non-native speaker of english I was always puzzled by this name, so I'd rather keep the entry -- 790 17:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Newt (disambiguation), which should also include other uses of Newt (the animal, etc.). --Idont Havaname 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to proper dab page as per Idont Havaname DES 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Newt (disambiguation) as above. Themindset 18:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiggen to Newt (disambiguation). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten the page to be formatted more like a disambiguation page, however I don't know if I'm allowed to move the page during VFD. If it's OK to do so, please feel free to move to Newt (disambiguation) and make sure there's a link to this page on the newt page so it isn't an orphan. 23skidoo 05:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have gone and merged the content onto a Newt (disambiguation) page. --Alan Au 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that there is an actual dab page for this, newt (name) is redundant. JamesBurns 03:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since the DAB article is there. Vegaswikian 00:04, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensional informatics

Google doesn't find anything on this and it is poorly wikified. --R.Koot 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. --R.Koot 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This might be a valid page (though it has no references), but based on the fact that the only references I find in the scientific community are http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/Research/webtech/ and http://www.sigweb.org/community/labs/webtech04.shtml, both of which refer back to the WP article, I'm left scratching my head. Google doesn't give me anything else that I can sink my teeth into, so delete and let someone re-create it with a meaningful definition if it's real. My credentials in this field are thin. I've been writing code for about 20 years, but I'm no hard-core information theorist by any stretch of the imagination. -Harmil 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 18:05, 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 speedy keep. smoddy 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albus Dumbledore

Template:Spoiler Not encyclopedic at all. The entire known skills and possessions parts are prime examples. Nobody needs to know that a character in a fictional book discovers uses for dragon's blood or is extremely skilled at transfiguration. This is more of a fan FAQ than an encyclopedia article. Needs to be shortened to a paragraph or two and merged with Harry Potter at best, deleted at worst. Severus Snape 15:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep* Clearly in bad faith. -- marie antoinette
• Strong Keep. User created just to do this VfD, smells like a bad faith nomination to me based on someone's idea of a joke for this username to nominate that article. --khaosworks 15:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major character in popular literature (precedent at Gandalf, Ophelia (character)). I suspect that this nomination is in bad faith. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vfd is not Wikipedia:Cleanup nor Wikipedia:Requested merges. —Cryptic (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJODN this nomination. smoddy 15:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Can something be BJAODN if it's only BJAON for being nominated for D? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does BJAODN have any rules? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong candidate for a Speedy Keep for notable fictional character. Capitalistroadster 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Come on people - think about it.... look at his username. This is a hoax.  :) Cmouse 15:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Strong precedents for articles featuring popular fictional characters exist. Cleanup is not a suitable VfD criteria. — RJH 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As this brings together information from multiple sources on a well-known fictional character, it is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJODN this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off)
• Keep. Keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep! -- Jason Palpatine 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- Why would someone delete this article? This is a hoax of some sort. 11:04 21 July 2005
• Delete 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' (joke) --Doc (?) 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unfortunately, Harry Potter is a notable book and so its major characters. --Neigel von Teighen 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I concur with Capitalistroadster & khaosworks. --Deathphoenix 17:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep; BJAODN this nomination before removal. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep this nomination was a joke; the username of the nominator is a Harry Potter reference, and see above comments for more (and though I'm not partial to having fictional characters in the Wikipedia, this one is as notable as needs to be). -Harmil 17:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too the delete attempt is a bjodn alright Yuckfoo 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Joke nom. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Is April Fool's Day early this year, or is Snape looking for more revenge? Oh, keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps BJAODN nomination. VfD is the Avada Kedavra of the wikipedia? humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, speedy deletion is the Avada Kendavra. These vfds are more like the cruciatus curse for everyone involved. Dear god, I'm such a geek. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Very bad joke, look at nominators username. We have precedent to keep major fictional characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if there is no serious objection, this VfD should be closed as a "speedy keep". -- BD2412 ^talk 21:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

there is no objection here Yuckfoo 21:40, 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. Woohookitty 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Main Page

The purpose of this project is to organize articles related to the Main Page. However, from what I know there is only such article, the Main Page itself, which is protected. Seems that this project has only one contributor, who started it and then did nothing else. The wording is also very vague. I'd say this page is not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my hairbrained scheme for organizing some other strategies related to Wikipedia:Browse via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories and another hairbrained scheme Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikiportals. It's a sort of top-down approach. So pending further analysis and posiible participation...

• Keep Quinobi 16:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that the information you put in the category got deleted together with the category (that was not the right place for it anyway, it should have been in the article). I doubt the top-down approach is the right one, on Wikipedia things usually go bottom up. Oleg Alexandrov 19:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Utter nonsense, not Wikipedia-style, and used as a sandbox. - Sikon 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful. Radiant_>|< 14:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Talk:Main Page should be the central coordination point for the main page. There are plenty of other coordination points for various categorization schemes. For meta merging and synchronization, I would invite participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Namespace. -- Beland 21:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Berryman

Vanity. smoddy 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. (same author as Paul Oh). --R.Koot 16:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has been rewritten. --R.Koot 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Keep I looked this guy up and he's the author of a whole bunch of books relating to Christianity in Latin America. He's apparently notable in the Liberation Theology community. Don't know if folks think that is notable enough for inclusion or not. I'm going to edit the article so check it out to see if it still looks like a delete after the revisions. Tobycat 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep author and marginally notable theologian. -Harmil 17:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable clergyman. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. DS1953 04:09, 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 speedy deleted by Bluemoose

[edit] Paul Oh

Speedy delete. --R.Koot 15:57, 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Elway

Delete. As the daughter of John Elway, she has not done anything herself notable enough to be included. The mention of her speech could be merged with (or just added to, because Delete and Merge is invalid) her father's article. Icelight 15:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain This really sounds like a vanity page, written by her or someone else. However, she is John Elway's daughter. I don't really know where you could go with this article though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep Her father should not be the focus of the article, she should. She's a notable college basketball player -Harmil 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC) On further review, it seems she's not as notable as I thought, and still a freshman. A lot is made of her potential, mostly because of who her father is, but I'm on the fence as to whether press coverage like this: [15] really indicates that she's notable or not... at the least, she gets a few mentions on google, and her stats are tracked nationally. If her hand recovers, she'll be notable as a college ball player. -Harmil 16:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I thought being notable only for being related to someone notable was a deletion criteria, but I can't seem to find it. As soon as she's done something notable besides being born, we can recreate the entry. -- Plutor 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Elway per other precedents on the offspring of the famous. Xoloz 04:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Family members of celebrities are not inherently notable. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 05:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just the daughter of someone famous. How many thousands of those are there? -R. fiend 15:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is not genetic. -Splash 18:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep is expanded, as per User:Harmil. JamesBurns 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vegaswikian 00:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per User:Harmil. DS1953 04:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per her introduction of her father at the Hall of Fame was the first ever time a woman had introduced a player at the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That is significant for women's rights, and do you people want to say you don't support women's rights?

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devayan

advertisement/self-promotion

• Keep. Since yesterday, we, the creators of the article, were confronted with a number of very surprising incidents involving the user goethean. First, the article was tagged as disputed by goethean because it supposedly violated Wikipedia’s rules of neutrality. Quoting from the user goethean; “It is not written from a neutral point of view. It will have to be re-written to conform with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. Specifically, the unattributed claims that a god led men to write a particular book represent a particular point of view and must be attributed to those who hold these claims…” We made the changes requested by this user and asked him to have the disputed tag removed. Instead of acknowledging the changes, he put a request that this article be entirely deleted. We find this absolutely incomprehensible. He claims that this article is meant for self-promotion. This article can in no way be considered self-promotion, as the author, Dr. Hajari, passed away in 1978. goethean also said that he did a search on google for Hajari+Devayan, and the search engine only provided two relevant hits. We would like to suggest to goethean that he makes another search in google for Devayan, and he will find many websites associated with the epic Devayan. Dr. Hajari was a life long devoted disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Sri Aurobindo was his guru. If he received any assistance from his guru, then there should be no reason for surprise. In the article, we have attributed all supposed claims to the author, Dr. Hajari, and the article in no way suggests that these claims are absolute facts. goethean also mentioned that Devayan is not listed amongst the books issued by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. It’s a fact that many ashramites have written books which have been published outside the ashram. Since this was our first Wikipedian article, we did not know that we did not have the right to delete comments posted by other users. We deleted goethean’s comments. After he told us that this was not allowed, we apologized to him and he put his comments back on the page. And as far as we know, we are allowed to post links on other articles which could be related to the subject matter. If still there are any points which need to be ironed out in the article, we would be more than pleased to make the changes. Considering all of the above, we strongly feel that this article SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!

19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There's only 2 separate google hits for Hajari+Devayan, one of which is a home page and the other a New Delhi book catalog. This is dishonest self-promotion --- the article's author claims that Sri Aurobindo was involved in the composition of this epic, a claim for which no evidence is offered. Sri Aurobindo is sort of the Indian equivalent of Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. The Sri Aurobindo Ashram publishes all books that Aurobindo wrote, and this title is not among them. --goethean ॐ 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The author of the article [16] [17] has removed the disputed tag, has blanked the talk page, has spammed many articles with links to this one, and has attempted to protect the article. --goethean ॐ 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

More recently, they're just vandalising the Scientology article, --Icelight 22:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've searched high and low, and though the book does appear to be refered to more often without his name, it's not by much, and most of those references are copies of a single boilerplate. Unless someone can come forth with some off-line references that are authoritative, I have to say that this is a non-notable book by a non-notable author (WP:NOT a soap box). -Harmil 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems like the book could indeed form a page of its own, if the claims behind it can be backed up and the POV is removed. --Several Times 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find much in the way of a basis for the notability of this book. Many of the links searching for just the title turn up either unrelated pages, or links back to the home page, often on user-submission sites. The article is also still not encyclopedic in the least, as it affirms that the book is a true prediction of the future. (Curiously, my crystal ball shows something completely different...) --Icelight 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete; non-notable fringe book by unknown cult. Note that this book is not authored by Aurobindo (which might have made it encycolpedia-worthy). --Bambaiah 09:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The first comment is a typical Chewbacca Defense, BJAODN-worthy I think. - Sikon 10:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the usual. Radiant_>|< 14:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: the keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the average length of comment required in its defence in VfD. (And for the other reasons given above.)-Splash 18:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:08, 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. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afelhem

This brief article announces that a game will be released sometime in the future, heaps accolades on it, and promotes its intended cheaper price over competitors. The info it contains is speculative (crystal ball). As an unreleased product it certainly is not notable. Lastly, most of the text is promotional. Recommend delete. Tobycat 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete MMORPG vanity. David | Talk 16:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Afelhem is a MMORPG that is soon to be released". WP:NOT a crystal ball. -Harmil 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, as blatant as advertising can get. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 10:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Demerath Family

Delete The family of a few minor notables is not with questionable relations to others, is not notable in and of itself. WP:NOT a geneology. Icelight 16:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Highly POV, non-encyclopedic geneology -Harmil 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could be a joke or vanity. Nothing notable, though. Friday 19:55, 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PBS Kids

Merge user 24.171.36.233

• An anonymous user put this on Vfd without making a good Vfd page; but I vote to keep because it appears to be shaping more nicely now. 66.32.158.84 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Under VfD criteria, 'stubs' merit expansion, not deletion. - Chairboy 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - agreed needs expansion. --66.216.68.28 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand I filled out the list of shows, but there's more to this than just a list of shows. PBS has a complex process for building a block of shows like these, and while some (Barney, Sesame Street) pre-date this block, they have all become a part of that machine. Details welcomed. -Harmil 17:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please and why vote merge if you are on vfd that makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 18:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Notable, widely-known, encyclopedic. Expand, don't delete. And since there are no objections, shouldn't this be a speedy keep too? --Titoxd 00:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. 23skidoo 05:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tool Army

Non-notable webpage, no matches in google other then the website itself. Chairboy 16:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete too secret. There's no real context in the article or claim to notability, and without accepting cookies, the home page of the site doesn't even render. -Harmil 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are many websites in the world... Friday 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, Alexa rank 266,905. Linked by six other sites known by Alexa. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fanclubcruft. Might merit a mention in the band's article but not its own. --Etacar11 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, nn website. JamesBurns 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 77 displayed hits? Not notable. WP is not a web directory, and there are thousands (millions now?) of fan sites, and we don't even cover them all as external links of related topics. Niteowlneils 15:59, 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 Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ejaz Fiaz

This article was created at a time when his name was being associated with the London tube bombings; there seems to be no evidence for this, and another person has been named as the bomber he was suspected of being. As far as I can tell, he is no longer a suspect, and the article should be deleted as being based on erroneous speculation. Delete -- Karada 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. After he has been left out from the investigation hypothesis, it's really unnecessary to keep this article. --Neigel von Teighen 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Zacarias Moussaoui didn't actually hijack any planes on 9/11, and Lotfi Raissi was found innocent on charges stemming from original theories he was involved in 9/11. Fiaz is a fairly major secondary player in an event of global proportions, I can't imagine not having an article about who he is. When the Kennedy files get released, would we delete Lee Harvey Oswald's article? I think not. Sherurcij 17:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Adding to Sherurci's reasoning, I'll toss in Richard Jewell, although Jewell did have greater notability owing to his actions at the time of the bombing, his libel lawsuits, and Janet Reno's public apology. Nonetheless, I think we've established an... acceptable, if not ideal... precedent of including articles for persons falsely accused of responsibility for major terrorist attacks. In the event we decide that Ejaz Fiaz is not notable enough a falsely accused person, then we just merge to 7 July 2005 London bombings. If it turns out he did have a role and isn't innocent at all, then I'd think there's no question that the article should be kept in that case. The Literate Engineer 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wait. His brother Naveed Fiaz will remain in custody through at least 23 July. There hasn't been a mention of Ejaz/Jacksy since 7/14 (via Google News), but he also hasn't, apparently, been found -- which may mean nothing. If the other Fiaz is released without charges, I'll have no objections. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not unthinkable someone will hit his name in future research on the event. I think keeping an article on falsely accused people (clearly labelled as such) should be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that being accused, then swiftly cleared, under intense media scrutiny in the aftermath of a major crime is independently notable, under the precedent of Richard Jewell. Xoloz 04:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notably involved (if accidentally) in a notable event. -Splash 18:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Splash. Edit article so it is clearer that he is not guilty if it is the case. --AI 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mgm|^(talk). Especially in the context of "intense media scrutiny". There is social justice in having innocence disseminated as heavily as guilt is (as per Richard Jewell's comment). While social justice is not necessarily the function of an encyclopedia, it does not detract from the fact that the dissemination of truths (facts) certainly is. L-Bit 07:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by MacGyverMagic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kahiem

Not notable 66.216.68.28 17:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete for vanity. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED per CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ayokunle Shoyebi

Non-notable. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under new CSD for vanity. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied per CSD A7. Non-remarkable person. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ganoria Crew

Not notable, zero google hits 66.216.68.28 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Creator had been making lot's of non-notable pages related to Ganoria and more or less vandalized the Katie Holmes page. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn whatever they are. --Etacar11 00:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:10, 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 speedy deleted by Geogre --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Badnawar

non-notable PhilipO 17:33, 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incontrovertible evidence

Dictionary or should be merged PhilipO 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No articles on Conclusive evidence, Conclusion of fact, or Conclusion of law. It is needed both for Law categories and Logic. nobs 17:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep ... and mathematics too.
  • Abstain Not so sure anymore after all. --R.Koot 19:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, not clearly explained anyway, and the notions from law, philosophical logic, and mathematics, are distinct among them. I'd change to "keep" if the article could be fleshed out to explain various notions of what constitutes "incontrovertible evidence", debate over whether there's such a thing, and if all of this were sourced. --Trovatore 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just noticed that the article is new as of today; that seems a bit early to put it on VfD. Probably should have been marked {{stub}}; then I'd have been more patient. I'm leaving my delete vote for now, but I'll watch developments and consider. --Trovatore 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Change my vote to keep, for now. R. Koot has put on a stub notice and promised to write the article. I'm assuming article can be renominated if improvements aren't satisfactory --Trovatore 23:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• back to delete, per other discussion --Trovatore 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Give notable term time to grow. Xoloz 04:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with evidence. Adjectivizations do not generally warrant their own article. Radiant_>|< 14:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio, from here. But since someone said they'd work on it, I'll hold off a bit. -Splash 18:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment so the "copyvio" seems at odds with what I was thinking, which was close to "original research". But is there some lawyer who can comment on whether "incontrovertible evidence" is a genuine legal term of art, as opposed to (as I had assumed) a mere rhetorical flourish? If it doesn't have a meaning not obviously apparent from its constituent English words, then I want to change my vote back to "delete". --Trovatore 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I was wondering which was why I took it to Google instead of one of those silly online encyclopedias. My conclusion was that it probably is not a proper legal term, since that was the only earlyish Google that treated that way. I think I might drop a message to User:BD2412, as I understand he's a lawyer. -Splash 02:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This appears to be a hyperbolic dicdef. It is indeed not a proper legal term - I'm not aware of any case ever ascribing a particular meaning to the term, and it does not appear in the pocket Black's Law Dictionary; the proper legal term is conclusive evidence (defined primarily as "evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary"). However, I abstain from voting as I am not so sure that the article should not exist as a philosophical distinction. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment:Conclusive evidence is exactly the definition I was looking for when I created the article; this was the only defintion I could find, but would be very much interested in the other term. Thank you. nobs 02:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with evidence. -- Naive cynic 08:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Evidence is a disambiguation page - I presume the above merge votes are thinking of either Evidence (law), or Scientific evidence (which redirects to Scientific method. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• merge and rewrite as copyvio, Law Dictionary as this seems to be a proper legal term. This the antithesis of rebuttable evidence.[18] and is used in Supreme Court cases, CRIST, WARDEN, ET AL. v. BRETZ ET AL., BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS ET AL. v. JACOBS ET AL., etc. Mmmbeer 17:51, 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 speedy deleted by Delirium. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd O'dowd

Notability not established 66.216.68.28 17:36, 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. I counted 4 valid votes for delete, 4 for keep.

[edit] Annie Glenn (neé Castor)

Delete While this is a well formatted article, it seems of dubious value to me, regardless of who she is married to. Non-notable? PhilipO 17:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep- I feel that this article is merited, not only because of who she is married to, but because of her decades-long struggle to help people with speech impediments, and other oral disabilities. Jdhowens90 18:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: vote by article author.
• Strong keep: as a person with a speech impediment myself, I feel that Annie Glenn has done a lot for people like me, and as such is noteworthy in her own right. 172.201.99.219 18:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Anonymous user's only edits.[19]
• Delete. The wives of U.S. Senators don't attain independent notability per se in the way that First Ladies do, and she doesn't seem to have done anything else that rises to the level of deserving an article. She should of course be mentioned in John Glenn's biography, but merging would be pointless because of most of this article is extremely trivial. "She has a long-standing interest in American folk arts and crafts and collects quilts and other needlework as well as historical household items from the small towns of Ohio." Maybe if we were writing a three-volume biography of Glenn, we'd go to such detail regarding his wife. No need to redirect, because the presence of "(neé Castor)" in the article title makes this a very unlikely search. Postdlf 18:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. By the way, it is spelled née, not neé, and if the article is kept, it should be moved back to Annie Glenn per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to her husband. Xoloz 04:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not a distributable quantity. No redirect. -Splash 14:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable DiceDiceBaby 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if rewritten. Also it should be moved to Annie Glenn as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). JamesBurns 03:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. or merge/redir w/her husband. RE naming, what JamesBurns and Android79 said. Niteowlneils 12:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Remarkable contributions to charity and the wife of a U.S. Senator and astronaut.
• Keep. Her contributions should be known and not lost behind her husband's fame.
• Keep. I was watching "The Right Stuff" and I found it interesting that there was an article in wikipedia about John Glenn's wife. She is not "notable" in some sense, but if an article meets wikipedia's users' need to learn I don't see why delete it. Disk space is cheap and this article will not strain wikipedia's bandwidth. The fact that one can find in wikipedia information that other encyclopedias might scorn is, I believe, one of wikipedia's greatest strengths. Dianelos 17:18, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeppe High School for Boys

Delete, create article for all the Jeppe schools and merge. Toasthaven2 18:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand considerably. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a school. I've categorised it. CalJW 21:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is a school and we have been over this how many times already Yuckfoo 21:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their site is well-designed and goes into nice depth, but I don't see any notable alumni listed anywhere (despite the school's existing for over 100 years). It's pretty much just a local school with little if any non-local impact, and not even worth merging into Gauteng because only universities are included in that article. "It's a school" is not a reason for keeping it. --Idont Havaname 21:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dunc. I love the "despite the Cabal's best attempts to promote that silly idea" comment. :-) --Idont Havaname 22:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools aren't inherently notable, despite the Cabal's best attempts to promote that silly idea. However, this one seems to be. Try Special:whatlinkshere/Jeppe High School for Boys for old boys (unfortunately their page entitled Well known old boys lists none!). Dunc|☺ 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dunc, though explicitly not as part of precedent (will there ever be consensus on the schools thing?) Shimgray 22:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 04:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle. For the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• TINC, and also Fnord. So there, I voted twice! So sue me. Radiant_>|< 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Fortified Keep — the usual reasons. — RJH 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete boderline notable at best. JamesBurns 03:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just look at that list of alumni. There can be no valid objection on notability grounds, even if such grounds applied to schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. appears notable for its history and alumni Salsb 00:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Fish, as above. --Carnildo 04:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the school seems to have contributed to society over the last 100+ years. Vegaswikian 00:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable school. DS1953 04:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Indicates notability in the title. Grace Note 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I enjoy voting keep on schools, it gives me a warm glow inside. Luckily they are under no real threat any longer. Kappa 23:21, 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 speedy deleted by Francs2000. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Enedy

Notability not established 66.216.68.28 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. DES 18:40, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 13:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Switch lightning

Google's never heard of it, and we don't even have an article for the game this is based on. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a father of two young boys and playing Lightning at the local park is their favorite pastime. Switch Lightning sounds like a thoroughly enjoyable game, not to mention all the extra exercise they'll get! I'm going to recommend it to my kids. I know I won't have trouble getting them to go to bed at night after a few rounds of Switch Lightning.

The game has seen quite a following in our little community. We started playing this game a few summers ago, and from time to time ,driving by the park, we see kids weve never even met before playing this game.

• I'm glad you enjoy the game, but for a game to be included in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable from independant sources and played by a somewhat larger group of people. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability (eg, discussion or coverage of the sport in a major media outlet) is presented. -- Infrogmation 16:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable, this is probably a very local thing. It would be nice if we had a Wikicities for all of these interesting little games and sports that pop up every so often.--Pharos 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I counted 2 valid keep votes, 2 valid wiktionary votes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galoot

Completing a VfD started by Matt.whitby. Looks like a candidate for Wiktionary. I abstain. Tobycat 18:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but make it less like a dictionary entry. There is relevant information on the hobby of collecting used handtools which is not necessarily dictionary content. --InformationalAnarchist 18:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. As for collecting, the phenomenon is certainly notable, as a type of human behavior. However, specific types of collecting are not, IMO, individually encyclopedic. Or do we think collecting vaseline glass or porcelain pigs is encyclopedic? Ken 03:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Galoot is dictdef. An article on just the Internet community, "Handtool Galoot" or some such, would encyclopedic. Peter Grey 15:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary it's essentially a dicdef. JamesBurns 03:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but make it less like a dictionary entry. There is relevant information on the hobby of collecting used handtools which is not necessarily dictionary content.

• Keep. This seems like more than a dic-def to me.--Pharos 00:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation process

Seems to be a promotion for Evolus ERP, not that I know what that is, but it produces few google hits. Delete. --Joel7687 18:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --R.Koot 20:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Straight advertising. (Why are so many obscure business practices spamming Wikipedia?) --Several Times 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can confirm that this is not original research. If it actually is a term, redirect to Enterprise resource planning, which'll be what the ERP stands for. -Splash 18:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This may be useful general article sometimes but it is only spam now. Do not redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Faux

This article is aptly titled. The Faux is not about anything real. Research reveals no such vessel and reading through the article itself points to other clues that it's all in jest (i.e. "Jest'liana" is the owner of the ship.) I did find ONE relevant google hit that seemd to associate some of the terms in the article with a website about "behind the stories" in games. It is possible that this is about the backstory of some video game somewhere. At this point, it appears to be very non-notable and the article in its current state doesn't make sense. I vote delete Tobycat 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to something that works for vessel names and fictional entities, say "Faux (name of work of fiction or game or whatever)". I'm skeptical about notability and authenticity, but I'd say give it a chance for now. Peter Grey 15:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I thought VfD was unsportsmanlike, as it started immediately after the page was first created, but there is still no context for the article. Peter Grey 09:19, 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 redirect. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mujaheedin Afghan

While there most certainly where a lot of Mujahidin in Afghanistan, I've neaver heard of the "Mujaheedin Afghan", and neither has Google nor Amazon, further, the idea that they killed "Millions" leads me to the conclusion that this is a hoax. Irishpunktom\^talk 18:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Soviet invasion of Afghanistan claims 1.3 million civilian casualties during the invasion period, to say nothing of the civil war that followed. Redirect to Mujahideen. Gazpacho 19:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Gazpacho. Xoloz 05:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt if anyone would actually type in Mujaheedin Afghan, rather than simply Mujaheedin. JamesBurns 03:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect. No useful content, but someone might type it in again.--Pharos 00:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lizzy Berryman

Delete. This is a bogus article, no real person with this name, with claimed history/status/celebrity. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Even if it's real, I see no assertion of notability. Friday 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 7 google hits for someone who is definitely not a "superstar". Hoax/joke/bs. --Etacar11 00:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moiseenko

Dicdef. smoddy 19:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I'd call it more of a geneaology, but that's unencyclopedic too. CDC (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a geneaological database. -Splash 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete genealogy. JamesBurns 03:19, 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 13:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Charlton

NB: This debate also covers the fate of the child page The Cosmology of Love. If the vote is keep, a separate VFD for this latter page can then be recreated if so decided. Manning

I see that all his works are "self-published". No claim to fame other than poetry and being an "activist". I did a google and most hits were unrelated people with the same name. Many of "What links here" appear to have been going for another person of the same name. Having self-published works does not make one notable. Thus, Delete. Friday 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete As above. --PhilipO 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Delete nn. --R.Koot 20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Mathew Charlton--Porturology 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your redirect suggestion - the suggested redirect is not to the same person. Manning 04:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the same person. Redirects are not only used for duplicate articles; a title which can be reasonably expected to be a common spelling error for the notable person's name can still be made a redirect even if it was originally created for a different non-notable person. Bearcat 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If he's good, we'll see him again in a few years. Denni☯ 00:10, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
• Comment. According to what links here and my recollection, Matthew Charlton was the leader of the Federal Australian Labor Party in the 1920's and was Federal Leader of the Opposition in Australia. This page prepared by Adam Carr who I understand is a Wikipedian in good standing [20] shows that he was leader of the Opposition between 1922 and 1928 when he resigned due to ill-health. I will rewrite the article tonight. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten to be about the notable guy above. --Etacar11 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect to Mathew Charlton (the Australian politician), which it was until it was recently vanitydalized by an admirer of the young acticist-poet of this name. Uppland 05:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move politician Mathew Charlton here as per Capitalistroadster. Uppland 15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have looked at the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Charlton the ALP politician which lists him as being Matthew Charlton. Ross McMullin's book on the history of the Labor Party refers to him as Matt Charlton. If the aspiring poet gets deleted, I would propose moving the Mathew Charlton article to Matthew Charlton. If we decide that the poet is notable, then Matthew Charlton should be a disambiguation article with entries for Matthew Charlton (politician) and Matthew Charlton (poet). Capitalistroadster 06:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO at this time. I find only two www links for him. One as a losing candidate in a UofT EngSoc election and the other in a blog of someone who the blogger met and gave him the Cosmology book which he describes as having "some good stuff in there". DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move Mathew Charlton to this article space as per Capitalistroadster. Google has a few hits for the Australian politician as Mathew but most as Matthew including believable ones like [21], [22], & [23]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although whoever wrote this article didn't have complete information and did a half-ass job, I'll vouch for Matt. He's an important part of the queer community in his writing, poetry and art here in the city of Toronto. I'm a social worker who loves poetry and I have worked with Matthew before. He has won a few awards even here in Toronto for his poetry and speeches. He was reviewed in Word too many years back to note on the web and has been quite involved in the small press community in Toronto. His collection "The Cosmology of Love" has been read and even discussed at science fiction conventions. I believe Robert Charles Wilson has openly acclaimed Matthew's work. I wouldn't presume that just because a person doesn't have an instantaneously strong online presence that he/she is not notable. (Unsigned vote by Apoetical (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • Can you add information to the article with verifiable sources to show his importance and that his work has been reviewed? DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm also a gay man who lives in Toronto, and I can't vouch for Matthew being notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry — I've never heard of him, and queer Canadian literature is one of my areas of expertise. (That said, I have added categories to the article; that shouldn't be construed as a vote in favour of keeping.) No vote. Bearcat 18:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with User:Capitalistroadster's comment of 22 July 2005. However, the poet should be deleted as for now. There is plenty of time to add him to WikipediA at a later stage. Let him win some notable prices for his poetry first. For the time being Mathew Charlton written Matthew Charlton should be found here. --Marbot 09:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep- Hi I'm Matt's ex girlfriend from grade school. I say keep because this boy has been through a lot and deserves even the most tiny recognition of his gifts and skills. I know he isn't famous, but that doesn't mean the world wouldn't benefit from knowing a little more about him- Cait (Unsigned vote by 64.231.202.232 (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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me -Splash 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circular redundancy

Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 19:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. At least, it doesn't make any sense to me. An attempt at humor, maybe? --Several Times 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete per above. I don't get it either. Hansonc 21:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete nm VfD, I've marked this and the other two articles created by the same new user at the same time for speedy deletion. I don't think meaningless rubbish should have to go through VfD. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NB The article was speedily deleted ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Practically empty PhilipO 19:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep
• Keep, in the absence of any argument against the college having page. I've added a college-stub notice to it. Flowerparty 23:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and let it grow. Fg2 03:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since I walked by their campus every day for a year. Xoloz 05:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I expanded this a little, but my previous vote has disappeared. CalJW 15:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. JamesBurns 03:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs expansion. Would be nice to see a project work on cleaning up school stubs. Vegaswikian 00:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DS1953 04:22, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 13:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bee swat

Article is about a dance move. Googling for "Bee swat" returns 30 hits, none of which seem (at a quick skim-through) related. Googling for the band "Awful Waffle" + "Matt Jensen" returns no hits. Delete on the basis of non-notability. jglc | t | c 19:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, per above. Friday 20:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn dance. JamesBurns 03:21, 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 VOTE CLOSED. Fate of page tied to fate of parent page, also under VFD. No need for separate VFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew_Charlton By Manning 04:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cosmology of Love

Self-published work by author who's up for vfd. No assertion of notability. Friday 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nn. Denni☯ 00:12, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
• Speedy nn microstub. --Etacar11 01:03, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sameer Kelkar

Not notable 66.216.68.28 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete according to criterion Article 6: Attack Pages. I've added the speedy tag to it. The Literate Engineer 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Commenting The page has been edited Half of it's still attack, but the opening sentence, "Sameer Kelkar," has been replaced with dumb vanity. News flash: passing a test with a 73% pass rate does not make you notable. Anyway, it may no longer be a clear-cut speedy candidate, but it's definitely still requiring of deletion. Especially before an edit war happens between attack and vanity! The Literate Engineer 21:29, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nepnoc number

This looks like a personal invention by the creator of the article. Not a single hit in Google. Woodstone 20:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find anything either. That makes this original research, and prime for deletion. --Several Times 20:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that this is original research and thus violates Wikipedia:No original research. — Joe Kress 20:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Author has been vandalizing several pages. --R.Koot 20:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Calling this original research is an insult to researchers everywhere. The term "unity" is New Agey enough as it is, while "nepnoc" is just plain laughable. PrimeFan 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Orignal research at best. Gblaz 21:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly original research. Certainly neologism. I think this could be a speedy delete as patent nonsense. The numbers 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite, but I'm not sure what the third element of the set is supposed to represent. Of course, negative numbers, fraction, decimals, imaginary numbers, etc. are neither prime nor composite either, so I don't understand what the point is. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very strange and unclear. Oleg Alexandrov 15:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neepsheep nipnoc ip nipnoop (Translation: Welcome alien spaceships and thier crews). linas 00:41, 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 13:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Souksavath

Not notable, vanity 66.216.68.28 20:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment She is a real tennis player. Whether that's enough, I don't know. Haven't been able to confirm whether she's a real "hottie" tho. Friday 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete she plays tennis, just not very well [24] (oh and I was dissappointed Google pictures was lacking too! ;))Dunc|☺ 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:23, 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. Dmcdevit·t 00:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pawg

Introduces a non-notable fetish website, then diverts directly into a POV fork. Several Times 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Flowerparty 21:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I'm not feeling generous enough to revert it from its present state... -Splash 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kill it wiwth fire. Redwolf24 02:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a nn website. JamesBurns 03:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flowerparty. Ken 03:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. A few people from this forum are determined to pull a "publicity stunt", as you can see here. Binadot 11:11, 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 13:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Black

Talk radio host in Oklahoma City. Low Google, non syndicated, in this case, means non-notable. ArmadniGeneral 21:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not-notable local radio guy CDC (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn radiojock. JamesBurns 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooleeney

It's the name of a company--the article makes it sound like a specific kind of cheese--that gets 583 google hits. Single sentence stubs like this that possibly border on vanity/promotion should be removed until someone is willing to come along and write an encyclopedic article. func(talk) 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as very short article with little or no context. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it has enough by way of context to escape that fate, barely. It tells us it's a type of cheese, and cow cheese at that as well as what it tastes like. Context is not the same as content. -Splash 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The term only gets 501 Googles, but their summaries, even to several pages in do seem to indicate that this is a type of cheese, even if a minority one. -Splash 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject appear legit, and the article has been expanded into a short stub. --Allen3 ^talk 13:13, 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 delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Fab

Band vanity. DS 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable band vanity page. Gblaz 21:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 21:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote to delete it. It wasn't made by us. I swear. We've got our own site that we work on. We're sorry! - Nork of P.R.E.F.A.B. (vote by 70.48.2.103 (talk · contribs))

• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:26, 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 12:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline patent

Neologism. Non-notable (6 hits on Google [25], 5 from the same web site). Presumably promotional (see the external link at the bottom of the article). I vote delete. --Edcolins 21:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• delete: Neologism. Perhaps No original research. Nothing anywhere except on his website. I vote delete. Mmmbeer 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Any attorney dreaming of doing this has my condolences, for they need serious clinical help. Xoloz 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn concept. JamesBurns 03:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Advertisement. --Ann O'nyme 10:16, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot patent

Neologism. Non-notable. Presumably promotional. See also "Storyline patent" above. I vote delete. --Edcolins 21:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to storyline patent. On the other hand.. just delete. --R.Koot 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete People attempt to patent all sorts of crazy non-patentable things; they don't become notable unless they draw real legal attention. This hasn't, and very, very likely won't. Xoloz 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per storyline patent. Mmmbeer 13:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn concept. JamesBurns 03:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Advertisement. --Ann O'nyme 11:20, 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 No consensus (6 delete, 5 keep, 6 votes by new users or anons), so keep --Allen3 ^talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Hideout

Local radio program, does not establish regional standard of notability EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — opinionated, prognosticative, unreferenced, and utterly fails to establish notability. How are these guys any different than your run-of-the-mill local radio talk show? :) — RJH 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn radio show. JamesBurns 03:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a growing radio show, and is linked to enough of the other larger ones, that it makes sense to keep it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Broberts (talk • contribs) 20:09, July 23, 2005

Above comment is user's first edit. EvilPhoenix talk 22:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• KeepVery good showing, lots of fans, a myspace group and stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.114.41 (talk • contribs) 21:18, July 26, 2005

IP address of page authorEvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• KeepHas listeners Worldwide, via internet feed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.78.33 (talk • contribs) 02:52, July 27, 2005

This IP address's first edit.EvilPhoenix talk 04:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Previous comments blanked by User:Fatbodyricardo [26]. EvilPhoenix talk 00:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Bold textKeep great show lots of fans that would love to see this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbodyricardo (talk • contribs) 18:26, July 27, 2005

• Delete. This was never put on the vfd page and the above vote was unsigned. I'll go with non notable and possible copyvio. --Woohookitty 05:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It was put on VfD: [27]

but I suspect the blanking of it may have removed it from being visible on VfD. EvilPhoenix talk 00:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Surprisingly, this doesn't appear to be copyvio. I've done some googling and can't find anything like it, though it is notable, perhaps, that the [page for this show] links into this page as information on its history. If the history is verifiable, though, this seems to be a show with a long history and might be considered notable especially given the set of programs not on vfd at category:radio programs (2 Sense especially comes to mind) and category:radio programme stubs. If Opie and Anthony on XM manage to land a spot there, a program on a major radio station in a city like Orlando would seem equally notable. While XM may have national coverage, its subscriber base isn't exactly massive. I personally don't feel that the criteria for non-notable has been met, but I'm not exactly convinced on the matter. --FreelanceWizard 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This show has a solid history and strong affiliations with legendary broadcast institutions such as WJFK FM, a heritage radio station in a top 10 radio market. This show is referenced repeatedly on shows like Ron and Fez, lending it further credibility. For the record, I am not a host or staff member on this show nor do I work for the radio station they are on or any other station they have graced. I am a follower of their careers however and this page should remain. Radiopeople 06:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Note: Radiopeople (talk · contribs) has four contributions; three of them are to this VfD.)
• Delete, nn local radio programme jamesgibbon 10:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this isn't a copyvio then I see nothing wrong with it. Agentsoo 10:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• The title sure seems familiar. Are you positive that this wasn't already VfD'd? ... hey yeah, I just checked the VfD history and this has been through before and prior votes have been deleted. Things that make you go hmm... — RJH 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Prior votes apparently removed by User:Fatbodyricardo. The article is even longer now, but it's still just a local radio show. I continue to vote delete. — RJH 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough for an entryGateman1997 17:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable local radio program. --Carnildo 21:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no such thing as local radio any more. Should be cleanupped though. Iliad says it isn't copyvio. Pedant 22:52, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think this is a copyvio -- the show as written in the article is fairly new and I doubt this much is written about it anywhere else. Besides, other radio shows have articles; this one's heard online and has callers from across the US (particularly DC, Texas, and Michigan), so where does 'local' radio become 'national' radio? Kutulu 01:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep,Has fans all over the country,good enough for an entry.BillyBob 16:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Above edit made by 24.165.249.72 --Allen3 ^talk 12:49, 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 delete. freestylefrappe 00:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Arabic phrases

This page essentially should be deleted for the same reason Islamic Term, which has received an unanimous delete reaction, should be deleted. It is an incomplete, poorly formatted copycat of the List of Islamic terms in Arabic page. freestylefrappe 22:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Emotional delete Delete. We all know that WP:WINAD, so this doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. If it were some kind of analysis of Arabic phrases, rather than a list of words it might work. Really, the same goes for List of Islamic terms in Arabic as well. --Dmcdevit·t 23:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. On this matter, Dmcdevit spoke for me. Although not necessarily as emotionally as I would have. The Literate Engineer 09:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, amended. --Dmcdevit·t 09:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WINAD. Radiant_>|< 14:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete list of foreign didefs. JamesBurns 03:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The "list of Arabic phrases" should be merged with the "List of Islamic terms in Arabic." The "List of Islamic terms in Arabic" is needed as a quick reference, and this other "list of Arabic phrases" is eating away at the other list. --JuanMuslim 05:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Islamic terms in Arabic, with the possibility of a simultaneous transwiki to Wiktionary. If WP:WINAD applies doesn't this stuff belong in the dictionary, either English or Arabic? Alba 23:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. To LOL (internet slang) since LOL is a dab page. -Splash 02:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loffle

Delete. For a "widely used" Internet term, it only gets about 400 hits, and most of those seem to be names, or user names. In contrast, even something like "roflmao" gets 325k hits. Icelight 22:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Internet slang. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LOL, where it is already listed. Xoloz 05:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Xoloz. - Sikon 10:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's not listed at LOL (nor should it be). It is not listed at LOL (Internet slang), which is in the process of being mercilessly pruned of rubbish, either. This is simple duplication, however. I agree with the redirect, on the presumption that LOL (Internet slang) was intended. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lollerskates and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lollersk8s. Uncle G 13:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to LOL. JamesBurns 03:30, 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 keep. Woohookitty 02:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate-Guitar

Website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. EvilPhoenix talk 22:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Alexa ranking: 2,213 [28]. If the result of the vote is "keep", I suggest moving the article to Ultimate Guitar Archive or Ultimate-Guitar.Com. --Edcolins 09:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as weakly as they come. That Alexa rank is unusually high, so they evidently do get some attention from their community. However, they have only 185 incoming links and 85 useful Google hits, so their scope is pretty narrow and they don't have much external attention. -Splash 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising, Wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, extremely notable.  Grue  21:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let the stubs grow! --Ann O'nyme 09:26, 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 Redirect --Allen3 ^talk 12:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical specifications

• Delete dictdef. Ken 22:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef, and useless at that. seglea 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Specification. --Edcolins 09:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Specification. JamesBurns 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Specification. --Ann O'nyme 09:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirected to Specification in line with majority view seglea 12:46, 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. Dmcdevit·t 05:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pleiku Campaign

Appears to be a personal history of a Vietnam War battle, not from an encyclopedic perspective Andreac 22:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; might be a reasonable basis for an article, but not this one jamesgibbon 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. There was no substantial agreement on what to do about this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Starfire

Would have called it nonsense but it seems like something that might make sense to someone. Probably a charactor from some tv/movie/book/videogame series. Possible reference to Starfire (comics)? Hansonc 22:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a character from Teen Titans, but not really notable to warrant an article, so delete. 23skidoo 23:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is a character from Teen Titans, but not really notable to warrant an article, so merge. Radiant_>|< 14:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to somewhere per Radiant. Meelar (talk) 15:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Teen Titans. JamesBurns 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Also consider this entry Dark Beastboy and Dark Cyborg after making your decision. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 02:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Land Warrior

This is a joke page. Naturenet | Talk 23:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, whatever it is jamesgibbon 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move to BJAODN? --Ann O'nyme 11:27, 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 KEEP: 8k, 3d, 1m. Anon discounted, nom included. -Splash 02:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Hanson (computer scientist)

Vanity Page Barkeep49 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article establishes notability. ElBenevolente 02:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Self-promotion. --Edcolins 09:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Although the article smells like vanity and self-promotion to me, my personal criterion for an published author being notable is that he or she have a book with an Amazon sales rank number of less than 200,000. The two books mentioned rank at #82,228 and #103,921 respectively, so they pass my test. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Google since he works there and there's little else to say about him. Radiant_>|< 14:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable research in compiler construction and optimization. Much more notable than the average professor, he's been at this for about 20 years and in addition to two books he has 32 papers listed on ACM Portal. Quale 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The only reason I could even consider this a keep is for his books, but I am not of the opinion that all types of books are equal. Some books are author driven, some are subject driven. People who buy novels certainly pay attention to the author. People who buy textbooks and techincal manuals generally do not. His books seem to be the latter sort. While people often have the mindset "I'm going to buy a book by Heinlein or Ambose" (or whoever), I think people who buy this guy's book are thinking "I'm going to buy a book on programming in C". The fact that this article also seems like vanity doesn't encourage me either. -R. fiend 15:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Seems factual rather than promotional. (As long as it doesn't turn into something promotional.) Peter Grey 15:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Quale. Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable programmer. JamesBurns 03:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since I think he meets the criteria that we would use for an author. The article could use a good cleanup so it does not read like a resume at the start. Vegaswikian 00:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bar of "notability" is being set way too high if this guy is excluded. Grace Note 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --67.171.147.236 13:37, 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 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Zinck & Chris Perry

Delete Not obviously notable people except as owners of radio station, and they're already listed on radio station page Andreac 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. All the info in this article is already contained in CJLS. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DoubleBlue. •Zhatt• 16:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DoubleBlue. --Deathphoenix 17:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 03:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 12:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radish (band)

No notability asserted or established. Allmusic.com lists only 1 album which doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, a band that was built up but never delivered apparently, according to Allmusic. A case might be made for keep though. --TheMidnighters 23:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup/expand. The album was released on Mercury Records. The band contained Ben Kweller who has since gone on to have a successful solo career therefore meeting Wikimedia Music guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, see, I never saw the mention of Ben Kweller in the article. Changing vote to Keep. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • In light of that, I have fixed up the article quite a bit in retribution for my mistaken nomination =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 03:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One album should be enough, given that WP is not paper. Yes, I know that some who don't like inclusiveness have written guidelines that say two albums but that seems pretty arbitrary to me. Getting an album released by a major label is an achievement beyond the overwhelming majority of bands and should be sufficient for an encyclopaedia with almost limitless resources. What we should be asking -- and some sadly never do -- is not "how do we look if we have an article on X?" (because obviously most visitors to WP don't even know we have the offending article) but "how do we look if we don't cover X?". Yes, I know. Not many people will look up the band Radish, but still, where's the harm in a short, well-written article for those who do? Grace Note 04:38, 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 Keep --Allen3 ^talk 12:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WHHS

High school radio station. Wikipedia guidelines reccomend a radio station must have a regional significance, not just local to one city. EvilPhoenix talk 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No Need to Delete WHHS. The station itself is old, and has a very rich history. It is more than just any "high school radio station", which is why it is mentioned under Philadelphia FM stations. Rockafeller talk 8:03 EST July 21, 2005
  • Please don't give your votes their own headings. I've also fixed your signature, which you can easily add to any talk page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. android79 04:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Radio stations are notable -- a '10-mile-radius' if that 10 miles is Philidelphia is pretty freaking notable. Almafeta 02:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents#Entertainment. Keep. The "oldest high-school station in the country" claim was not present in the article when I made my vote. android79 00:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you read the introductory text to Precedents#Notability, it is clear that the precedent only indicates that regional radio stations are always notable, not that local ones are always non-notable. -- Visviva 12:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear, actually. My interpretation of the statement "Radio stations are notable if broadcast at least regionally (i.e. not limited to a single city)", specifically the part about not limited to a single city, is that a radio station that only broadcasts within a few mile radius (Philadelphia or otherwise), is not notable by that definition. EvilPhoenix talk 08:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Radio One, their owners. A 5-10mile radius is pretty titchy compared to the coverage of proper stations. -Splash 18:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent. JamesBurns 03:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Haverford (Pennsylvania) High School per consensus on notability of High Schools. Keep redirected link in List of radio stations in the Philadelphia market. Dystopos 15:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Station was reinstated on different frequency, and given special exemption from FCC. See here Argument is moot. I am updating information on page. Please remove deletion template from page. Herandar 05:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not declare that an argument is moot. That is rude. There has been a written and defined precedent, reached after much work towards consensus, that is the foundation of my argument. The fact that the radio station was given excemption from the FCC does not change that stations status in regard to to notability precedent that I am citing. Further, the deletion template must remain on the article page until the close of the debate process, which has not happened yet. EvilPhoenix talk 08:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't see a reason to go against guidelines here. Content should be moved into the school article or used to create it. Vegaswikian 00:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What on earth does it harm to have an article on this station? The "guideline" is not the product of consensus so much as a warning to article creators that deletionists will jump on their article if it doesn't meet these guidelines for "notability". Grace Note 04:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oldest High School Radio station in Nation makes the station nationally relevant and notable. I apologize for my previous language, the argument in my head was that station was not relevant as it no longer existed... I would vote for deletion in that case. Herandar 02:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Note: this is user's second vote. EvilPhoenix talk 13:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The oldest high school radio station in the United States is notable. More important, the so-called "guideline" is illogical: the notability of a media outlet isn't determined by the wide geography it covers but on the number of people it reaches, and a lot of people live in a 20 mile diameter circle of Philadelphia.--Pharos 00:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might propose altering the language of the notability guideline? I'm just going off of my interpretation of the guideline as written. I don't believe it's really fair to call the guideline "so-called", my understanding is that a fair amount of discussion and work towards consensus went into developing those guidelines. Whether you choose to follow those guidelines is up to you, as is how you choose to interpret said guidelines. I am simply submitting an article that does not, in my opinion, meet the guidelines. Some have agreed, others have not. EvilPhoenix talk 13:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the story is with this article's deletion (or not)? The "VFD" on this article has been up for over 10 days. Rockafeller 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • With seven unqualified keep votes out of twelve total, it's pretty clear that this discussion will end with either a no consensus or keep result. I would close it myself, but I am uncomfortable with closing a discussion I voted in with a result I agree with. However, ten days is a long time to be on VfD, even with the backlog of old discussions, so if no one else objects in a reasonable amount of time I'll close this as a keep. android79 22:08, 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 delete and added to BJAODN. Woohookitty 16:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Noise (neo-nazi group)

seems to me to be either a spoof, or so deeply obscure that it had better be scrapped and started again. seglea 23:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, first of all the artice starts off with "probably". Seems like a hoax, the other articles created by the author have already been speedied. But beside that, no notability established in article. --TheMidnighters 23:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. This is one of the funniest non-articles to come down the pike in a long time. Sneezelflump! - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (or BJAODN). "The crime of selling one-sided paper..." -Willmcw 23:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but BJAODN-worthy. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 03:37, 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 merge and redirect to University of Maryland. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] College Park Diamondback

Student newspaper for University of Maryland. No claims of notability, just three short sentences. Willmcw 23:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Merge and redirect to UMD. Not notable. (And I'm an alumna) And I think the proper title is The Diamondback, anyway. If memory serves... --Etacar11 01:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's a better idea. --Etacar11 15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to the school. Xoloz 05:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Revise; should be renamed University of Maryland Diamondback, is notable in several areas and this article should be allowed to grow -Howardjp 13:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly how is it notable? I'm curious. --Etacar11 14:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is the largest circulation college paper, and one of the few dailies, it is the newspaper that originated the comic strip The Boondocks and was edited by Jayson Blair before he became a fiction writer for the New York Times

I know USC and UCLA both have dailies. And I think Columbia does too. Not sure how widespread this is. But I think the Diamondback merits mention in the UMD article, not its own. Just my opinion. All I remember of it is kids whining about city noise restrictions... ;) --Etacar11 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 14:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the University. I gotta say, though, it always strikes me as amusing when the VfD has more information than the article. -R. fiend 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn student paper. JamesBurns 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect after adding the information added from this discussion. Vegaswikian 00:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Note - I've sourced the info that someone provided above and added it to the University article. -Willmcw 22:45, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Luis Perez-Rosario

vanity of vanities, all is vanity seglea 23:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. Can't these be speedied now? --TheMidnighters 05:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity. --Edcolins 09:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't read the new policy till now, I have speed-deleted it. seglea 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoffsegen

Non-notable online petition and campaign started by a particular messageboard. It's goal is to get David Hasselhoff at the 2006 Oxegen Festival. Only 2 unique Google hits [29] Madchester 23:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN, I hope! --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. --Edcolins 09:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn petition. JamesBurns 03:38, 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 12:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Ramoochi

The main link points to Angelfire user page; <10 Google hits, primarily referencing a non-notable blog; recommend delete. --Alan Au 00:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mr Bound 00:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Edcolins 09:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable if it hasn't even made it to its own site yet. -Splash 18:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:39, 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 12:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramoochi

Non-notable fictional character from an obscure blog. I recommend delete. --Alan Au 00:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Edcolins 09:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — since I voted to delete the website too. -Splash 18:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:39, 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.