Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] July 22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Buddha's Witnesses
This appears to be made-up history. No google hits for "Buddha's Witnesses", "Buddah's Witnesses" or "Klaus van der Dam", except for Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in Rick Fields' How the Swans Came to the Lake. - Nat Krause 04:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I think it's some kind of joke, though not a keeper. --Several Times 14:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Buddhists have been memorising the scriptures and going from door to door for 2,500 years. Shantavira 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 16:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, whatever. It'd been in "Orphaned Articles" for over a year, I figured I'd make it a bit more visible. Oops. Delete, then.DS 18:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless existence and notability are established (which I think is unlikely). —Seselwa 19:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --ZappaZ
02:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC) - Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; looks like a joke to me. IINAG 22:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and move to BJAODN Xaa 02:56, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] London slang
If this is London slang at all, it's not anything I've heard, in 20 years of living in London. Maybe this is the slang of some tiny group of clubbers; maybe it's nonsense. In any case, a proper article on slang in London would be far more detailed than this, as it would need to describe all the different kinds of slang prevalent in different London ethnic and socioeconomic groups, as well as subcultures. Delete or rewrite from scratch. -- Karada 08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Direct quote from WP:WWIN: "[Wikipedia is not]: A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a leet cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep." Exactly. --Dmcdevit·t 08:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- this stuff belongs in wiktionary, if anywhere, though they're probably not going to take it in this format -- Francs2000 | Talk
08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)- Delete - as I said on the discussion page: many of the words are defined quite adequately in the average dictionary; this sounds like a particular subculture's slang (see Gina Yashere on the Lenny Henry show) rather than "London" slang. Brequinda 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*Delete although I actually suspect a copyvio. David | Talk 12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see below.
- Delete I live in London and know very few of these words. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Dmcdevit. Dcarrano 17:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this isn't anything I recognise and includes none of the slang I've heard Londoners use. Vashti 19:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete questionable whether London slang varies significantly from general British slang, but if there is a legitimate article on this subject then this isn't it. PatGallacher 23:41, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons provided above. Binadot 22:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
All subsequent votes are associated with the cleaned up version of the article, which has significantly altered its content. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I think the current version is fine. Secretlondon 08:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep VfD~=cleanup.Grue 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)- Strongest keep possible good rewrite. Grue 09:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I live in london. Its nonsense. "Peckish", and "Snog" are slang terms nationally not only in london, and "queue" isn't a slang term whatsoever. ~~~~ 21:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE: The article was entirely rewritten. Keep new version. It's now linguistics, so anyone who opposed on Wiktionary grounds should really revisit the article. It is not duplicate material, and it is not a list of slang terms anymore. Geogre 03:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have read the rewritten version, and sorry, I still vote to delete. Its starting point is still BA's guide to London slang, there is not a great deal apart from that. Some of the words are general British slang. London is a large multi-cultural city, you'll be hard pressed to find many words that are common across not London but not elsewhere. BA were producing an advertising campaign aimed at an American audience, not a serious exercise in linguistics. PatGallacher 10:43, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
- Change of vote to keep following rewrite. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- I change my vote, to keep and improve new version. Needs a clearer distinction between general British slang and specifically London slang, but the rewrite is now a good, and improving, article. -- Karada 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Good rewriting work. David | Talk 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into British slang or United Kingdom slang.Rich Farmbrough 11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into British slang or Delete, I personally don't see how any of these words mentioned on the article are slang, since when is "loo" or "lift" slang? These are just words used in the United Kingdom instead of "toilet" and "elevator". The article is mostly nonsense, needs a cleanup and also at the same time seems like a huge promotion for a British Airways campaign I've never even heard of. — Wackymacs 19:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The point being that what is being sold/promoted abroad as London slang isn't at all. Londoners know this - the advert isn't aimed at us so we are not exposed to the misinformation. Secretlondon 12:44, 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kenn Shiel
Orphaned article, no notability established, probable vanity -- Ferkelparade π 08:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Kenn Shiel is a well-known individual and a nice man. Leave him alone, Viking-boy. (unsigned comment by User:220.248.121.81)
- Delete - zero google hits -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no notability established. Thue | talk 10:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 14:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Dcarrano 17:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:CSD A7 DES 18:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A borderline speedy under the new rules, but throwing the word "writer" in there is kind of a claim of notability. -R. fiend 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Technically all of us Wikipedians are also writer/editors. Can we get articles too? (joke :) Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Manning 22:27, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Aelred Doyle
Vanity, no notability established -- Ferkelparade π 09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - "Aelred Doyle" gets four google hits -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not say why he is notable. Thue | talk 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Article does not explain what he has written and 4 Google hits indicate that his work is not widely known. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no verifiable claim to notability. Dcarrano 17:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. Do those 4 hits even have anything to do with this person? Doesn't look like it. --Etacar11 00:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:22, 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 delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] JAXASS
- delete. Not notable. There is nothing called JAXASS except for a newly posted blog entry. This article is a way of gaining acceptance for a newly coined term. Wikipedia is no place for original research and personal opinions. — (Nomination made by Sleepyhead81.)
- comment I'm going to guess you don't believe that jaxass.org exists either. --Sleepnomore
- comment Updated vote reason --Sleepyhead81 07:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- keep There is something called JAXASS and its being defined as we speak. Just because you don't like the naming of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. THe domain names have been registered and a call for opinions is being devised. --Sleepnomore
- delete. No, there is no widespread support of this term you have coined for yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to express your views or attract visitors to your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a blog. Please use your blog to express your own views. And please create an account instead of posting anonymously. --Sleepyhead81 11:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) — (Duplicate vote.)
- keep There is no "widespread" support for AJAX either in the scope of the industry. AJAX was coined by Garrett for himself, so that invalidates your second argument. This is not simply "my" view, this is a view that has been expressed by many in the industry. JAXASS has been created out of the animosity of those supporters for REAL innovation with this technology instead of simply renaming the former technology something else. The current JAXASS call for opinions describes client-side support for standard messaging and WSE-n. I did create my own account and haven't posted anonymously. Just because you don't like this idea, or you have some affinity for AJAX doesn't mean that you should be able to squash information about opposing technologies. Your affinity to AJAX is proved by your own blog title "ASP, XML, AJAX, SQL, JavaScript, CSS, DOM. Marketing. 24SevenOffice", and several blog posts: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and the list goes on: [14] Your opinion on this matter doesn't qualify you to make decisions on what opposing technologies are allowed to exist in wikipedia, and which do not. You are free to blog about how much you hate JAXASS, but that doesn't negate its existence. --Sleepnomore — (Duplicate vote.)
- So if I am against Ajax and make up a new acronym on my blog it should be added to wikipedia? That is the key argument here. If JAXASS is added then every guy can coine these little acronyms and theories and have them added to Wikipedia. Please read [What wikipedia is not]. — (Sleepyhead81 forgot to sign.)
- Comment Not unless it culminates into a real technology. I have three very influential Microsoft MVP's who have joined me in creating the initial call for opinions on JAXASS to replace AJAX. The difference between simply coming up with an acronym and coming up with an acronym for a competing technology is completely different. In the same line of argument, if I'm against Ruby, and I can make the argument that it doesn't have widespread support, should I just go around making calls for deletion of any wikipedia article discussing Ruby? There was no widespread support for the Betamax videocassette, but you can find information about it on Wikipedia, and its a product none the less. This is not the forum for you to voice your opinion on a technology by deleting every bit of information you find on it. --Sleepnomore
- So if I am against Ajax and make up a new acronym on my blog it should be added to wikipedia? That is the key argument here. If JAXASS is added then every guy can coine these little acronyms and theories and have them added to Wikipedia. Please read [What wikipedia is not]. — (Sleepyhead81 forgot to sign.)
- delete, is nonsense. Burschik 12:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment there were many topics that were nonsense in their day but were later shown to be gosple truth [Galileo] is one such example I've commented on below. The world being round was yet another such example.
- As hoary and worn out example as it is irrelevant - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment Its hardly irrelevant in context of Mr Burschik's comment that it's nonsense to him. Valid analogies often do sound worn out -- mostly to those who are on the receiving end of the incontrovertible truth for which they cannot argue against.
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news or for dissemination of emerging new truths. It is not Wired's "memes on the rise" section. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it a vehicle for presenting generally accepted facts. Articles on controversial or disputed topics are accepted when there is a substantial body of people that accept them. We would not have accepted an article on the Copernican world system when it was first proposed. Only when it became clear that there was widespread belief in the Copernican world system, then the existence of this belief would then be an encyclopedic fact, to be reported neutrally along with the more-accepted Ptolemaic system. In any case, comparing JAXASS with Galileo seems a little... immodest. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment While I don't purport JAXASS to be a meme on the rise, I would point out that your argument falls flat when comparing against other topics such as Crazy Frog. Someone else also pointed out that Time Cube has its own topic. This is far from receiving widespread belief. Alternatively, I point you to Branch Davidian which has no widespread beliefs, but still retains its status in wikipedia. Instead, it has a warning stating that its neutrality is disputed. This seems to lean much more toward a neutral point of view than to simply delete the topic based on the bias of several AJAX-zealots and sockpuppets who were asked to defend AJAX against the competing specification presented with JAXASS. Your insistence on what is immodest is a matter of opinion. JAXASS is not an emerging truth as the technologies surrounding JAXASS have been available since 1998. If you consider a 7-year old technology to be emerging, you are mistaken.
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news or for dissemination of emerging new truths. It is not Wired's "memes on the rise" section. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it a vehicle for presenting generally accepted facts. Articles on controversial or disputed topics are accepted when there is a substantial body of people that accept them. We would not have accepted an article on the Copernican world system when it was first proposed. Only when it became clear that there was widespread belief in the Copernican world system, then the existence of this belief would then be an encyclopedic fact, to be reported neutrally along with the more-accepted Ptolemaic system. In any case, comparing JAXASS with Galileo seems a little... immodest. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment Its hardly irrelevant in context of Mr Burschik's comment that it's nonsense to him. Valid analogies often do sound worn out -- mostly to those who are on the receiving end of the incontrovertible truth for which they cannot argue against.
- As hoary and worn out example as it is irrelevant - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment there were many topics that were nonsense in their day but were later shown to be gosple truth [Galileo] is one such example I've commented on below. The world being round was yet another such example.
- delete, or merge into AJAX as alternatives. Especially since "JAXASS was created as a direct antagonist" to AJAX. Mmmbeer 13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An "initial call for opinions" does not equate to widespread acceptance. The difference between this and Betamax is that Betamax, though never widely used, has existed for years. This JAXASS, however, is being "defined as we speak". --Several Times 14:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete original research defended by sockpuppets. Dunc|☺ 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep There were no sockpuppets harmed in the making of these edits. (this comment by User:65.23.106.77)
- comment Widespread acceptance has never been a good critieria to be against anything. Extermination of the chrisitians and jews was not widely accepted -- particularly by the christians and jews, but that didn't make the holocaust not exist. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
- Delete Not yet notable and the article is pure POV to the point of being a soapbox. "techno-weenie?" NOT encyclopedic! Whether AJAX should be listed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a forum for hashing out standards or conducting software holy-wars. Robert A West 15:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- comment see my comments below concerning being encyclopedic. The standard is not being hashed out here. Its being hashed out between several individuals at www.jaxass.org. This isn't a holy-war either and I resent your use of that term in light of today's political climate. People lose their lives in holy-wars. Apple and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Sun and Microsoft were involved in a struggle that is well documented. Just because its contested does not call for its removal and exile.
- From the author's page: "Obviously the specification is yet to be written". vapour-concept. Delete DJ Clayworth 15:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Can you show me the manuals for JavaOS? hmm, no? What about the software specifications for [Singularity (operating system)]? no? Not having a specification means nothing in context of being encyclopedic about technology.
- Delete Not yet an established concept. Not yet worthy of an encyclopedia article. Gregmg 16:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, non-existent (except as vaporware, and an attack page. Defender is also abusing the VfD system, link spamming related pages and posting highly POV commments re this page. --Icelight 16:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, vaporware, attack page. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- comment please see my comments about vaporware below.
- Delete So what if someone put a name to it. AJAX is much more friendlier of a name than XMLHTTP (bleh). AJAX is something that people are actually using. If anything, put this as a footnote to AJAX because that's all it is. — (Unsigned comment by 24.167.224.238; user's 1st edit.)
- keep What does the above comment have to do with the merrits of this article? You may agree with the naming of AJAX instead of XMLHTTP, but that doesn't negate the existence of JAXASS. — (duplicate vote)
- Strong delete, neologism/original research plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 17:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- keep, this is no more neologic than any other acronym when it was originally created. SNMP, SMTP, AJAX, BASIC, COBOL, HTTP, HTML, XML, XAML, AWK, SED, and the list goes on. These were all new at one point and are noteworthy. — (Yet another duplicate vote by Sleepnomore.)
- keep So something being vaporware is a cause for deletion? We need to delete all of these , and many more then too: Windows Vista WinFS Project Xanadu Duke Nukem Forever Phantom Gaming System. Simply because something is still in development does not mean it deserves deletion.— (duplicate vote)
- Delete. "JAXASS is currently in infancy and its specifications are yet to be released." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is precisely the kind of article at which that policy is directed. When it has been released and a good case can be made for its importance and its notability, we can consider an article on it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting projects, however worthy, that are "in infancy." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep The request to delete this article does not lean toward a neutral point of view. Deleting this article would be strictly one-sided -- favoring AJAXians. I'm willing to concede that this article can use some cleanup and will continue to maintain this article as the project rolls forward. I'm also willing to remove links to this topic from AJAX until such time as adoption is more widespread. While the acronym for this project is somewhat farcical, the concepts behind this technology far outweighs that of AJAX and other similar projects/technologies that have undisputed mention on Wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by [[User:65.23.106.77|65.23.106.77)
- We're not voting delete because of objections to the term, or of the name of the article, or of the technology itself, or of you as an editor. We're voting delete because we find that the technology is not suited for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a term and technology that is not of widespread use or knowledge. That being said, I vote delete as well. Scott5114 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, please don't vote more than once - comments added after your original vote should start with Comment. Scott5114 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- My sincerest appologies. I am new to the voting concept. I have since gone back and re-read the voting guidelines. Thanks for pointing my mistake out, however. I took the lead from Sleepyhead who voted twice, so I assumed this was the way to respond. It is my fault for assuming anything.
- By the way, please don't vote more than once - comments added after your original vote should start with Comment. Scott5114 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- commentI understand the apprehension at the existence of this topic in the encyclopedia. Several arguments revolve around the technology being vaporware or in its infancy. Those issues have been addressed by pointing out other vaporware topics listed in wikipedia. Others have argued that the idea isn't widespread enough to exist in the online encyclopedia. I argue once again that other projects such as JavaOS and Singularity (operating_system) exist on Wikipedia that aren't widespread because it doesn't exist. One could argue that while JavaOS is vaporware, the Java language is not. Or that while the C# operating system doesn't exist, it's technological foundations do. Is that not the case with JAXASS? The technical foundations exist, but the concept is still being developed -- just as many other wikipedia-listed topics are. This topic is being hotly contested, in my opinion by a COS (call-for-sockpuppets). Its also being slightly contested because its a direct competitor of AJAX which is obviously well-liked by those of you voting for deletion. While I can sympathize with your plight, the widespread propaganda flair-up of one technology does not negate the need for clarification of another.
- keep The request to delete this is silly. This is a really cool concept and am looking forward to working with it. I know more than a few other Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals other than myself that are very excited about this and it definitely should be kept
- delete This is one guy with an ax to grind trying to use Wikipedia as his platform.
- comment Just because something came into existence for reasons you disapprove of does not mean it shouldn't exist. One could argue that the word nigger appears in the encyclopedia because someone has an axe to grid with a race. You could make the argument that Hitler appears here because one guy was very anti-semetic -- having an axe to grind with Jews. Java itself came from one guys hatred of a conglomeration of of tools.
-
- "Patrick Naughton, an engineer at Sun, had become increasingly frustrated with the state of Sun's C++ and C APIs and tools."
- Having an axe to grind doesn't disqualify something from its useful place on Wikipedia.
- All of you are reaching at this point. No one has made a valid, unemotional case for deletion of this topic. At best, you can now join me in editing this topic to match the current state of the technology and help me maintain the topic as it grows in popularity.
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. --ZappaZ 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment The term encyclopedic keeps popping up, so lets define that from [15]
-
- Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
- Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dic /-'pE-dik/
- Function: adjective
- of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>
- How can you suggest comprehensive coverage without inclusion of terms so consequential to the industry. 50 years from now, when someone looks back at wikipedia, how can they get the full picture without inclusion of this term?
- Alternatively, lets define encyclopedic from the very system we are debating on:
- Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written [compendium] of [knowledge].
- compendium - A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system.
- knowledge - Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.
- Based on this, your own definition of encyclopedia claims to be comprehensive - containing the full body of knowledge. And by knowledge, we are to include something such as JAXASS, which, in isolation is of lesser value in your opinion.
- This is no different than the work of [Galileo]. This is a hotly contested and widely controversial topic. Many refuse to have it published as it goes against the core of what you believe in -- despite having truth and backhand support from many true technological intellectuals. And now you hold a 5-day inquisition where I'm forced to try to defend myself simply because I published a truth that you don't care to hear. As cardinals in the inquisition, you would have been threatening [Galileo] with torture until he begged for forgiveness and recanted his findings.
- You state this isn't encyclopedic, but I say wikipedia isn't encyclopedic without [JAXASS] as a topic that will continue to expand in the next few months and years to come.
- delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox specifically states that Wikipedia articles are not for "proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words." I believe this should in itself be enough support for deletion, with no further discussion, but so much more support can be found at What wikipedia is not
- comment And the fact that AJAX was defined a month after being posted on a blog, and before widespread adoption of the word was in place doesn't bother you? There was no hot contestation of that term as it was placed on wikipedia. The original idea wasn't posted on wikipedia. The original idea was conceived locally between several technology professionals, manifested on my blog, and only then brought to the forefront in [wikipedia]. I'm not proposing a new solution here, the solution is already proposed on my blog. This topic is here, just as any other piece of knowledge, to make wikipedia comprehensive. Also, we are not defining terms here. This topic details the information known about an existing technology. --Sleepnomore
- comment why even discuss this, this article arguably falls under Criteria for Speedy Deletion: it's short and insulting. Just look at the first external link: AJAX = FRAUD. This goes beyond insulting, its defamatory and possibly grounds for legal action. If the author wants to leave himself open to that on his own blog, that's his own business, but, without looking at the specific criteria, it seems to me that exposing a third party to such risk should be grounds for not just deleting the article, but banning the user
- comment how about you not post that anonymously? I do post this on my own blog and I would dare anyone to find some grounds to file suit against me for posting about a project that was concieved in response to the term AJAX. Anyone can be sued for anything. That's both a good and bad concept of many legal systems. I could sue wikipedia for censorship and harrasment based on this very topic, and I believe many of the points I've made give those charges good grounding. I wont do it. I'd prefer to just show how assinine many of you are by proving you wrong over the next few months. Based on that, sure, I could be sued too, but that doesn't give it grounds and that isn't a reason for deletion from wikipedia.
- comment censorship and harassment?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- comment Actually, if I had intended that as a threat, I can see how you would consider that to be troll bait, but it was used in contrast to your actualized trollbaiting -- stating that I should be sued and banned for simply making a topic based on the new technology JAXASS. Your accusation of troll baiting, therefor doesn't fit me. HOwever, what does fit you is the term Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Noting that your IP address hasn't posted on any topics other than this or/or vandalism of another page (AJAX).--Sleepnomore
- comment If I'm trollbait, how come I reeled YOU in, considering how you read way too much into my posts. I don't think you should be sued, but I think you are unnecessarily putting yourself into a position where you could be. Your accusation of sock puppeteering is hard to support, considering I haven't used an alternate identity to vote twice on this page: rather, it is to protect myself against possible reprisal by you. You've never threatened such agaisnt anybody, but you seem that unstable to me. On the other hand, your accusation of page vandalism is entirely baseless but not entirely unexpected, and, in my opinion, is yet something else to consider when wikipedia considers not only removing your inane article, but also banning you, which may well follow. Friendly advice dude: you are NOT going to win.
- comment Fair enough. I wish you luck, but if I "don't win", neither does the community that won't be able to find information out about JAXASS from wikipedia. In that aspect, you are right, I don't win, and neither does anyone else if this topic is deleted.
- comment If I'm trollbait, how come I reeled YOU in, considering how you read way too much into my posts. I don't think you should be sued, but I think you are unnecessarily putting yourself into a position where you could be. Your accusation of sock puppeteering is hard to support, considering I haven't used an alternate identity to vote twice on this page: rather, it is to protect myself against possible reprisal by you. You've never threatened such agaisnt anybody, but you seem that unstable to me. On the other hand, your accusation of page vandalism is entirely baseless but not entirely unexpected, and, in my opinion, is yet something else to consider when wikipedia considers not only removing your inane article, but also banning you, which may well follow. Friendly advice dude: you are NOT going to win.
- comment Actually, if I had intended that as a threat, I can see how you would consider that to be troll bait, but it was used in contrast to your actualized trollbaiting -- stating that I should be sued and banned for simply making a topic based on the new technology JAXASS. Your accusation of troll baiting, therefor doesn't fit me. HOwever, what does fit you is the term Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Noting that your IP address hasn't posted on any topics other than this or/or vandalism of another page (AJAX).--Sleepnomore
- comment censorship and harassment?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- comment how about you not post that anonymously? I do post this on my own blog and I would dare anyone to find some grounds to file suit against me for posting about a project that was concieved in response to the term AJAX. Anyone can be sued for anything. That's both a good and bad concept of many legal systems. I could sue wikipedia for censorship and harrasment based on this very topic, and I believe many of the points I've made give those charges good grounding. I wont do it. I'd prefer to just show how assinine many of you are by proving you wrong over the next few months. Based on that, sure, I could be sued too, but that doesn't give it grounds and that isn't a reason for deletion from wikipedia.
- Delete Google returns only 11 hits for JAXASS ajax. Recreate the article if the term ever becomes popular. Rrreese 00:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The Time Cube has better proof of its existence than JAXASS does. Take your petty battles to Usenet.
- comment Which, of course, has its own wikipedia topic (Time Cube)
- Delete - irrelevant, definitely original "research", POV advocacy or marketing, sockpuppets, not to mention unnecessary hyberbolic comments - Skysmith 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The notion exists; the ideas, although vague, at least have the right to exist. I'd suggest to return and reconsider it in a year or two. --Vlad Patryshev 21:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- The right to exist does not imply the right to have an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Nobody is entitled to use Wikipedia as a launching pad for their ideas. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Clearly this article should be deleted.
"Wikipedia is not a democracy". All issues brought up by those voting to delete have been addressed with comments and are invalid reasons for deletion. Several topics of similar circumstances exist without contestation on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Clearly this topic should remain. --Sleepnomore
- comment. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but "The votes are a means to gauge consensus", and the consensus is indisputably and overwhelmingly for deletion. Especially considering that you are incorrect in asserting that "all issues....have been addressed". For instance, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". In order to assure a neutral point of view, in my opinion you would have to significantly rewrite the article. Bear in mind, this just seems to be the one objection you haven't attempted to refute. You've addressed most of the other objections, but obviously not to anybody's satisfaction but your own. I don't even think you'd find consensus for a rewrite, but that might be one compromise approach you could pursue.
- comment. This from the same guy who vandalized the page and then tried to put it back as he found it? A neutral point of view is definitely possible with this topic should we start discussing the changes rather than deleting information simply because you like another technology better. I said it before (see below) and I'll say it again, I'm willing to come up with a neutral solution that better suits the needs of those around, but I'm not willing to concede that deletion is the appropriate response to this topic. --Sleepnomore
- comment. NPOV has to do with articles themselves. You don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. It's a microcosm of your whole JAXASS concept. Can we expect a Wikipedia article from you about every single thing you dislike? Where does it stop?
- comment I haven't attacked anyone or what they have to say. This article isn't JUST about my not liking AJAX. The fact that this is how the technology started was important to the article about the technology so I included it. Due to criticism from this procedure, I've parred that aspect of the technology down on the page. And, no, I don't expect you to see an article about everyone's opinion -- that's what blogs and rant pages are for. However, when that criticism becomes a competing technology, it is noteworthy. --Sleepnomore
- comment To me it seems like you are trying real hard to seem reasonable and say the right things, but your actions contradict your words. Your tendency for insisting on having the last word, for instance, to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV, try as you might.
- comment I make no appologies for defending the topic, nor for stating what needs to be said when false accusations are made. If that requires me to respond to every comment provided in this delete request, so be it.--Sleepnomore
- comment Case in point. Nobody's making "accusations". This, and your sweeping characterization of same as "false" continue to demonstrate your seeming inability to adopt NPOV
- comment The very nature of attaching possessive pronouns to negative connotation with myself, rather than the article, acting as the anticedent is accusatory by its very definition. If you believed otherwise, your second observation in the foregoing comment would not have been necessary. I have no objection to the accusations provided they are accompanied with outright claim and admittance so long as my recriminations are also indulged. Backhanded aggression doesn't help your argument, however. You continue to make my point that this process, at least for this topic, is close if not spot-on absurd. I can defend the merrits of the topic all day, but remarks such as, "to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV" continue to lean towards clarvoyance which is definitely out of my area of expertise. If we could get this discussion away from your psychological assessments about my future behavior, and back to the topic at hand, I think you'll find that I'm extremely reasonable with regard to how the article is prsented. I've already made some modification based on comments here. While I can promise nothing about personality disorders you attribute to me, I will be more than happy to continue the pattern of effective and constructive modification in regards to the article. --Sleepnomore
- comment Case in point. Nobody's making "accusations". This, and your sweeping characterization of same as "false" continue to demonstrate your seeming inability to adopt NPOV
- comment I make no appologies for defending the topic, nor for stating what needs to be said when false accusations are made. If that requires me to respond to every comment provided in this delete request, so be it.--Sleepnomore
- comment To me it seems like you are trying real hard to seem reasonable and say the right things, but your actions contradict your words. Your tendency for insisting on having the last word, for instance, to me indicates that you will not be able to adhere to NPOV, try as you might.
- comment I haven't attacked anyone or what they have to say. This article isn't JUST about my not liking AJAX. The fact that this is how the technology started was important to the article about the technology so I included it. Due to criticism from this procedure, I've parred that aspect of the technology down on the page. And, no, I don't expect you to see an article about everyone's opinion -- that's what blogs and rant pages are for. However, when that criticism becomes a competing technology, it is noteworthy. --Sleepnomore
- comment. NPOV has to do with articles themselves. You don't like what I have to say, so you attack me. It's a microcosm of your whole JAXASS concept. Can we expect a Wikipedia article from you about every single thing you dislike? Where does it stop?
- comment. This from the same guy who vandalized the page and then tried to put it back as he found it? A neutral point of view is definitely possible with this topic should we start discussing the changes rather than deleting information simply because you like another technology better. I said it before (see below) and I'll say it again, I'm willing to come up with a neutral solution that better suits the needs of those around, but I'm not willing to concede that deletion is the appropriate response to this topic. --Sleepnomore
Please take this back-and-forth somewhere else, such as user talk pages. This discussion is for the article, not for disputes between users. android79 03:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Actually it's been kind of fascinating to see the one and only proponent of this article "in action" as it were.
- comment Please add comments at the end of the article. This vote for deletion is for the entire article - not specific items in the article. --Sleepyhead81 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment much like the deletion for your companies advertisement was called for deletion but failed for whatever reason. Clearly you lost that vote 3 to 0 but the article . I'm replacing my comment at the top so its clearly visible to the administrator and replacing the comment type as rewrite --Sleepnomore
- Keep Is there even one valid argument against it? It's every bit as valid as so many other items here, I honestly can't believe that deleting it is being debated this hotly. -- Vote by user 24.214.184.231
- comment Unfortunately this is yet another time you are wrong. This was not a vote by me
- comment. Funny how that user also added a link to your blog as well. The user was: [16]. --Sleepyhead81 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment Which if your ever-so astute mind would pay attention, I speedily removed. If you look at the talk page for JAXASS, you'll see why. You continue to be wrong and grasp at straws. You've reverted to playing a guess-who's-who game rather than debate your ideas for deleting this topic. You still fail to make a valid point. I would also point out that before I even started this topic on wikipedia, I looked up AJAX and saw someone placed an external link to my blog before I decided to post my own article about the topic. While I didn't add that blog post to the links section initially, I later returned and modified this entry so it looked cleaner. If you'll note in the AJAX history since my AJAX=FRAUD blog came out, there have been several posts to that page that made the same argument I did. Such as "ajax is not a new approach"-[User:12.33.211.29], "what this link said" -[User:219.95.215.178], "Definitelly not new to us, we have used in various interactive tasks including server-push (experimental implementation of publisher subscribe)." - [User:63.166.226.84], etc. I suppose you would attribute all of those to me as well. But once again, you'd be wrong. I find it funny that you are even acting in this capacity to ask that a topic be deleted when you have overzealously used Wikipedia as your own advertising platform -- adding links to 247 office everywhere that you possibly could. Wikipedia is not your personal opportunity to put up ads for your company. Sleepnomore 00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Funny how that user also added a link to your blog as well. The user was: [16]. --Sleepyhead81 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment Unfortunately this is yet another time you are wrong. This was not a vote by me
- comment I can't see there has been a rewrite of the article. Only minor changes has been done. Besides, this vote for deletion is regarding whether 'JAXASS' should be included in wikipedia or not. --Sleepyhead81 15:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- delete Obviously no community support for this. One person using wikipedia to try to gain legitimacy for a non-notable idea. Vote by User 80.58.11.107.
- comment so far, I've managed to gain the support of at least 4 people with myself. - Sleepnomore
- delete Honestly you can't expect to be taken seriously with that offensive name jaxass...85.101.166.181 18:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment I don't expect anything other than to create a technology. Its up to you to take the name for what its worth. If it makes you sleep any better, one of the most well-feared/respected remote adimiinstration products was named Back Orifice and it had a very offensive name and logo. Sleepnomore 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- comment Respected? You sound like a hacker. A trojan horse may deserve an article just as a disease does. Is your product in that category? On second thought, I don't wanna mess with you now that my IP is exposed.
- comment I don't expect anything other than to create a technology. Its up to you to take the name for what its worth. If it makes you sleep any better, one of the most well-feared/respected remote adimiinstration products was named Back Orifice and it had a very offensive name and logo. Sleepnomore 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- comment. Can someone please make a decision on this vote? Sleepnomore is not only advocating his point of view but has now began repetitive vandalism of this page by adding his comment at the top of the page. New comments go at the end of the article. --Sleepyhead81 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it should exist. Mark it with a "Current Events" tag. Edit it yourself if you feel that a biased POV is being introduced. Perhaps this article and other articles like AJAX need to be merged into an article about the ongoing development of this sort of software (I don't know what term to use, and I don't care, because VFD pages are about the merits of the article as an encyclopia entry, not the viability of the subject matter of the article). If we delete this article, what happens when a user out there in the world comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, which he or she encountered in some other context? Users are developing a reasonable expectation of finding reliable information about a wide range of topics here. When no article exists for a topic, they end up disappointed. We should seek not to disappoint. I say keep this article, but bring it up to standard. Deleting is so permanent. If you wonder what my credentials are to support this opinion, I have a BA in History and am an U.S. Army officer engaged in the defense of freedom (location immaterial) that makes it possible for projects like Wikipedia to exist. I would like to see some of the delete proponents state their bona fides so that we can evaluate how much weight to give their opinion on this structure-of-the-Wikipedia discussion (as compared to the propensity to discuss the relative merits of JAXASS, JAVA, et.al.). And lets remember to assume good faith --Mddake 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- rewrite I've modified the contents of this article over the past few days. I've removed several of the objectionable items and added additional material. Sleepnomore 17:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- comment Since adding this comment Sleepyhead81 has vandalized it four times (see history). He has removed this comment and changed the text of it in all cases. Furthermore, my article was completely wiped by him and it had to be restored by someone else. This has gotten out of hand. This article deserves to stay and the VfD needs to be removed immediately. Sleepnomore 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- comment. You can make comments and state your view - but please do not lie. I have never wiped out the JAXASS article. This vote for deletion page follows the talk page guidelines which specifically says: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made.". So your comment should go at the bottom of this page. Please do not move it to the top as it is against the guidelines. --Sleepyhead81 07:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- comment - I'm no more lying about your wiping the page than you are lying about other contributors. My page was wiped twice by an anonymous IP. I can speculate it was you just the same as you can openly speculate that the other "keep" comments are my sockpuppets. In the spirit of NPOV, I'll keep my comment down here although I highly disagree with your agressive edits. In the future, if you have a problem with my wiki-behavior, I suggest you use my talk page and 'REQUEST' that I change the behavior, citing wikipedia policy with links. Sleepnomore 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- comment***** Hey Jaxass - yeah YOU. I deleted your bs page, knowing that it would get automatically restored instantaneously because this IP address is banned from deleting. You accusing someone else is just par for the course. You have proven yourself not only to be unwilling to listen to reason, but also to be unable to recognize it. You are obviously on a crusade and to not delete YOUR article (yes, yours, and only yours) is to let wikipedia go to the dogs, so to speak.
- comment - I'm no more lying about your wiping the page than you are lying about other contributors. My page was wiped twice by an anonymous IP. I can speculate it was you just the same as you can openly speculate that the other "keep" comments are my sockpuppets. In the spirit of NPOV, I'll keep my comment down here although I highly disagree with your agressive edits. In the future, if you have a problem with my wiki-behavior, I suggest you use my talk page and 'REQUEST' that I change the behavior, citing wikipedia policy with links. Sleepnomore 08:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- comment. You can make comments and state your view - but please do not lie. I have never wiped out the JAXASS article. This vote for deletion page follows the talk page guidelines which specifically says: "Proceed vertically: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made.". So your comment should go at the bottom of this page. Please do not move it to the top as it is against the guidelines. --Sleepyhead81 07:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- comment Since adding this comment Sleepyhead81 has vandalized it four times (see history). He has removed this comment and changed the text of it in all cases. Furthermore, my article was completely wiped by him and it had to be restored by someone else. This has gotten out of hand. This article deserves to stay and the VfD needs to be removed immediately. Sleepnomore 21:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - it's a software project whose offical website doesn't even provide a way to download the code - this is not notable. Come back when you have 1000 users. JesseW 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- comment - AJAX itself was created a month after Garrett "coined the term". It wasn't notable, it didn't have 1000 users (at least not calling it AJAX), and didn't have a download. Once again, a swing and a miss at a real reason to delete this entry. Sleepnomore 13:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- comment*** "swing and a miss", condescending and POV
- comment - AJAX itself was created a month after Garrett "coined the term". It wasn't notable, it didn't have 1000 users (at least not calling it AJAX), and didn't have a download. Once again, a swing and a miss at a real reason to delete this entry. Sleepnomore 13:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Self-promotion, premature. --Michael Snow 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Original research. Self-promotion. --213.179.58.29 08:33, 3 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 no consensus (again). Eugene van der Pijll 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stockport cricket club (again)
Previous vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club. Votes 11-7 in favour of deleting. Its author (Jimmyb (talk · contribs) aka 62.252.192.9 (talk · contribs) (though I think the latter is a shared IP)) even recognised its utter non-importance and even requested that it should be deleted [17], and was clearly just arsing around with it anyway. [18]. If that isn't consensus, though I don't know what is. (This I think has a quite a lot to do with the fact that I vote on the merits of school articles rather than automatically voting keep).
To clarify: This is a small cricket club, which there are thousands like throughout the country. We lack depth on the subject; we have articles on each of the County Championship sides, but the Minor counties (the next level down) are just listed - and only Cambridgeshire has an article. It sits like a thorn in category:English cricket right next to the MCC!. It gets 110 Google hits, none of which reveals a website. Dunc|☺ 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if you think "11-7" is consensus, you obviously don't know what it is. Kappa 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'd like to see a reference to it, and it should be at Stockport Cricket Club - but it passes the (admittedly very low) WP notability threshold. As far as lack of website is concerned - if you have a look at List of current first-class cricket teams you'll see that many major clubs lack a website, jguk 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But no cricket club without a website has an article... It is also different for Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Indies where use of the Web for such things is far less. Incidentally, this article is never going to be verifiable, simply because there is no possible reference. smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Already gone through VFD, too early for renomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I feel I need to explain the structure of English cricket. At the top level, there is the County Championship. This is equivilent to the Premiership. There are 18 counties. In addition, there is a minor counties championship, perhaps equivilent to football's lower professional leagues. Very few players in minor counties cricket are professional. Then, below that, is league cricket. These are Saturday afternoon cricketers. This is where Stockport is. Now, there is no promotion between these levels. Therefore, Stockport cricket club can never become any more notable than they are today. I understand that the previous keep was on account of people not really understanding quite how insignificant this club is... smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I understand perfectly well, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover clubs like this. This should not have been renominated. CalJW 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I undeleted it because 11-7 is not consensus for anything, and the original poster has no right to ask for it to be automatically deleted if other people have also edited the article. I have no opinion on whether this should be allowed so soon after the first vfd debate, or on the article itself. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: with "club members who died in both World Wars", it must at least be nearly a century old, which possibly speaks in its favour. Uppland 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. Most cricket clubs in the country are that age. My town club was founded some time in the 1860s, yet Monmouth Cricket Club is red. smoddy 13:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia has hardly started crawling yet. It will have much more depth in 10 years time. CalJW 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP will evolve into an indiscriminate collection of information, but it isn't there yet. Consider (1) that many places that have such clubs are stubs, and (2) we have a single article on a minor county. Look at the number of cricket clubs in Greater Manchester only. Now further consider that at the next level down, the top club league in Lancashire is the Lancashire League. I can't find which league Stockport are in, but it's below this. Starting from the bottom and working up isn't a very clever approach to writing articles. Revisit this issue in 10 years perhaps, but not now. Dunc|☺ 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was not under the impression that Wikipedia as a whole used any specific "approach to writing articles". Nor do I believe that arguments such as "there are more notable things without articles" is a valid reason to delete any article. The correct response would be to write an article for the more important cricket clubs if cricket clubs interest you, and leave the valid stub be either way. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP will evolve into an indiscriminate collection of information, but it isn't there yet. Consider (1) that many places that have such clubs are stubs, and (2) we have a single article on a minor county. Look at the number of cricket clubs in Greater Manchester only. Now further consider that at the next level down, the top club league in Lancashire is the Lancashire League. I can't find which league Stockport are in, but it's below this. Starting from the bottom and working up isn't a very clever approach to writing articles. Revisit this issue in 10 years perhaps, but not now. Dunc|☺ 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia has hardly started crawling yet. It will have much more depth in 10 years time. CalJW 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. Most cricket clubs in the country are that age. My town club was founded some time in the 1860s, yet Monmouth Cricket Club is red. smoddy 13:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, equivalent to a not particularly notable local business. Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be of at best local notability. DES 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for non-notability. Nandesuka 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps vanity from a Mr. M. Short? Not notable. -R. fiend 20:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Stockport. The information is somewhat useful, I feel, but it does feel a bit odd sitting on its own. Sam Vimes 22:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with Stockport. --Calton | Talk 00:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep again, both for the reason cited at the previous VfD and for the reason that there was a previous VfD not so long ago. -- Jonel | Speak 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus". Dunc|☺ 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Tony has pointed out the verifiability of such clubs. It is trivial to make the articles NPOV. Uppland has noted that the clubs typically have a great deal of longevity, including the one in question. If those qualities are not enough to create an assumption of noteworthiness that must be overcome in order for me to agree with deletion, I don't know what qualities would be. Also, if people went through and re-nominated every article that finished VfD as "no consensus" (or worse, deleted the article anyway as you did with this one), VfD would be an even more aggravating place to spend time than it is now. I hope you're not really suggesting that articles be nominated time after time until they reach consensus. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus". Dunc|☺ 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep again. If our cricket coverage lacks depth, we will achieve that depth by writing more cricket club articles, not deleting the few that we have. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article. [[smoddy]] 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article. Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind that Cheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Whether Cheshire County Cricket Club has an article or not is irrelevant. When someone wants to write an article about it, an article would be written. Just because no one has yet isn't a good reason to delete other articles. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- We're discussing whether to delete this article, not whether a further 3,000 articles should be written. If someone wants to write a verifiable article about a small cricket club, I personally have no problem with that. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind that Cheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article. Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article. [[smoddy]] 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, local sports clubs generally aren't notable. Radiant_>|< 19:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Squash 08:49, 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. Joyous (talk) 18:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] You know you have no life when
Non-encyclopedic. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or move to a subpage on BJAODN. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Content already at Wikipedia:Wikipediholics so delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Just delete it, I didn't realize there was a formal page for that stuff Cunado19 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Adds nothing that's not in WP:WHT Flowerparty 16:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN I did this, then forgot to list the page on VfD. Sorry. smoddy 17:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- You can't BJAODN your own creations! It's in the rules or something. Plus, I have a condition to add: *When you try and be witty on VfD. humblefool® 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Was nae my article! I BJAODN'ed it, then forgot to VfD it. Sorry... [[smoddy]] 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- You can't BJAODN your own creations! It's in the rules or something. Plus, I have a condition to add: *When you try and be witty on VfD. humblefool® 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not funny enough for BJAODN Cyclone49 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dump into BJAODN (as has already been done) or make into an article about "You know you have no live or are too addicted to [insert item name here] when..." jokes. ~GMH 07:18, 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 no need to list - user page only -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Almafeta/Furry/Archive1
The current Furry article has been moved to Furry Fandom and vandalized by Encyclopedia Dramaticans. I created Furry/Archive1 because I needed a copy of the original article to go into a bibliography of a book I am publishing. However, five minutes after the archive was created, User:Francs2000 moved it to my userspace, and deleted the redirect. Well, I can't exactly put a page in my own userspace in the bibliography... Almafeta 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you can't archive in main namespace either. The only thing I can suggest is to reference an older version of the article, but this will result in a very long internet address. As the creator of this archive you can request for it to be deleted: it doesn't have to go through this lengthy process as you are the only person who has edited the main content of the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:31, 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of years in archaeology
I listed a couple of the pages individually but I don't have the time or inclination to do them all. This sort of sub-listing of yearly events is totally unnecessary, especially considering the fact that a very small number of 'events' are actually listed. I would recommend of the deletion of this list and, at the very list, a redirect of all of the 'years in archaeology' articles to the article of the corresponding year. For example 1707 in archaeology could be redirected to 1707. -Soltak 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Overly contrived category with no relevant information. More an exercise in building a template than anything else. Any relevant events should be listed in their corresponding years. --Corto 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I remember when we had many such stubby and redlink heavy "years in" articles, many of which have grown considerably., but apparently we havn't had many editors interested in the history of archaeology yet. It's a valid topic with much room for expansion. If it is decided to delete this, I strongly reccomend consolodating the existing information somewhere, perhaps into an article entitled "Chronology of archaeology" or something similar, and then redirect existing articles there. If no one cares to consolodate, I'd say leaving our current stublets is mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to consolidating the information into something such as "Important Dates in Archaeology." -Soltak 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and then Consolidate. As suggested above, an article on "Important Dates in Archaeology" might be best for now. If that grows over time, it could be subdivided in some fashion, i.e. region of the world, cultures, or centuries......WBardwin 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Point of order: Perhaps you mean "Consolidate and then delete"? If one deletes the information first, I don't see that there would be anything to consolidate. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Of course -- but the history function allows us to do it either way! WBardwin 06:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and merge content into List of years in science and it's children articles like 1707 in science. It is a project that never got off the ground. Penfold started it in March 2004 and it hasn't really developed at all since then. Besides, there is no reason that the archeology content needs to be segregated out from the other science content like this. Tobycat 06:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- This sounds good to me. -Soltak 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Do what Tobycat said. :) Superm401 | Talk 17:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with relevant year in science until such time that there is an editor to create lengthier articles on years in archaeology. Note to admin: this applies to both votes below. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Tobycat and create list of archaeological events (if something similar doesn't already exist). As it stands this list provides a horrific way of navigating through a very small amount of information. Even if we were to separate these events by date it might be more sensible to do it by decade or even century. Flowerparty 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral, although it sounds like a merge with science, at least for the time being, may be in order. Just wanted to point out there are MANY more year in archaeology articles in this series[22]. Niteowlneils 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. - SimonP 21:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Tobycat reason, and/or create a single List of archaeological events. It really IS a horrible way to navigate through a pathetically small amount of actual information. --Calton | Talk 06:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete after you take any useful info and put it in say general science category. Archeology is not that big and imprtant field.Renata3 06:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- really? What is your definition of big and important? It is to me. WBardwin 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Treating archaeology as solely a science is to open a big old taxonomic can of worms and merging it with those articles would not be acceptable to me. The field does not entirely constitute a true science as, for example, experiments/excavtions are not reproducable, once a site has been dug and interpreted it can't be re-dug and re-interpreted by someone else. Expanding List of years in archaeology would be a demanding task but it could happen slowly if those of us who are writing archaeology articles remember to copy paste paras into the relevant year article. Keep. adamsan 10:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Separation of lists by subject is essential to prevent them becoming flabby to the point of uselessness. Calsicol 16:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Looks good to me. It will grow. linas 21:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful, once the individual year articles are more complete. Uppland 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Archaeology is worth plotting by year, and will fill in eventually. JDoorjam 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1952 in archaeology
This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1952. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1952 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, nothing there. Delete --Corto 15:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I just added something else, and I'm sure much more could be added with a bit of research. A valid topic with room to expand. Infrogmation (talk • contribs) -- 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with 1952 in science, which already has a section for archaeology. -R. fiend 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- strong Keep. Merging isn't sensible: archaeology isn't science. Why not have this article? Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm sure interesting things happened in the world of archaeology in 1952. This page might come in useful for some archaeologist of archaeology. Whyever delete it just because there aren't many events in it yet? A valid topic with room to expand indeed. Where else would one find a list of archaeological events of 1952? Give me a week or so and I'll dig out an archaeology journal from the 1950s and expand the article. If we do merge, and people like me add tons of stuff to it, someone will suggest splitting again. So why merge? Robinh 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Archaeology isn't science? I'm really interested in understanding why you think that. I took a course in archaeology in college and it sure felt like science to me. -Soltak 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- For those that don't feel Archaeology is a science I would direct his or her attention to Archaeology and Archaeological science. -Soltak 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Infrogmation and Robinh (though I'd say archaeology _is_ science). …Markaci 2005-07-23 T 01:00:20 Z
- Keep, article has potential. Archaeology is not a science in that it does not fully conform to the scientific method. It does contain scientific elements though, hence the separate page on archaeological science. adamsan 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Part of an obviously valuable series. Calsicol 16:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps Merge or Create New Article, agree with Soltak. History of archaeology is an encyclopedia article. Important Dates in Archaeology is something that might make a good article, possibly by merging all these year-by-year lists together into a new article. An Endless List Of Archeological Achievements Categorized in Separate Articles By Each Year in History is not an encyclopedia article, it's an incredibly unweildy index. Xaa 20:21, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1707 in archaeology
This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains only one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1707. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1707 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Stubby, but a valid topic capable of expansion. -- Infrogmation 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. One event in a year's archaeology does not justify a list of that year's archaeological events. (Although I'm looking forward to seeing what's in store in 1708 in archaeology.) Flowerparty 18:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Based on the List of years in archaeology, it seems that the 1700s were mediocre for the activity, so merge all "17?? in archaeology" articles into one article, Archaelolgy in the 1700s. -- BD2412 talk 19:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with 1707 in science. -R. fiend 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep. There was a shedload of antiquarian activity in the eighteenth century that can be added. adamsan 11:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Part of a clearly valuable series. Calsicol 16:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless it is expanded from more than one item, it's pretty useless. jg325 *talk* 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps Merge or Create New Article, agree with Soltak. History of archaeology is an encyclopedia article. Important Dates in Archaeology is something that might make a good article, possibly by merging all these year-by-year lists together into a new article. An Endless List Of Archeological Achievements Categorized in Separate Articles By Each Year in History is not an encyclopedia article, it's an incredibly unweildy index. Xaa 20:21, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The spill canvas
Non-notable band. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, move → The Spill Canvas. Google thinks they're notable. Two albums to their name. I fixed the page up a bit. …Markaci 2005-07-23 T 01:22:06 Z
- Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 04:36, 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. Joyous (talk) 21:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Socialist Occult Facism
Probably a Hoax, certianly PoV. No sources cited; a sub-stub. Does not quite qualify for a speedy, however. DES 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- What you mean apart from the fact that they can't even spell fascism? -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's a delete by the way. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's a delete by the way. -- Francs2000 | Talk
- Eighter way, "Occult Fascism" has hits fom google (with S), but nothing connected with Socialist. Hoax, Delete. -Feydey 19:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's just a rant, though just what is being ranted about is less than clear. --Trovatore 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete! 00:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 06:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hexa do
It's a version of Sudoku that hasn't been verified by anyone yet. User is seeking validation via Wikipedia. Delete Francs2000 | Talk 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No hits in a Google search on "hexa do" sudoku. Chuck 19:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:37, 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 no consensus. Suggestions to merge to Unification Church. Joyous (talk) 01:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] BCworld
A web forum for young people from a particular religion. From the sounds of the description, it's not particularly notable. Francs2000 | Talk 19:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- s>Delete. Cleanup and merge to Unification Church. Non-notable forum, unverifiable information. -Willmcw
19:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)21:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC) - Delete. Non-notable for inclusion as a forum. jglc | t | c 19:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyojung (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2005
- Delete nn forum. JamesBurns 04:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Unification Church. -- RHaworth 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Unification Church. Redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable - 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hye Sung Gehring and Sungis
The page is obvious vanity: lines such as "He became well known through xanga, myspace, BCworld, and other forum sites." and links to various xanga sites and myspace profiles don't help. This should be a speedy userfy. jglc | t | c 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Sungis. --Angr/t?k t? mi 19:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- User has IMHO forfeited his right to userfy this page by removing VFD and Speedy labels and creating a sockpuppet. Just speedy delete both articles. --Angr/t?k t? mi 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:Sungis. Craigy
(talk) 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC) - UserfyDelete. I'd already begun to VfD this when another user suggestd speedy-delete, becuase it is apersonal page with not serious claim to notability. It's been re-recreated at least once. -Willmcw 19:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Sungis is a repeat post of the article. jglc | t | c 19:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Expletive. We have full-blown vandalous activity by this user. He has removed several VfD tags multiple times, created sockpuppet User:Hyojung from User:Sungis and seems intent on continuing this behaviour. jglc | t | c 19:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity page (in the extreme I may add) --Richhil 19:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe speedily (I tagged it for speedy once already when it was just his photo, but I see it was recreated) maybe block user. -R. fiend 20:34, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, content has been merged with Dairy Crest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cathedral City (cheese)
Delete Cathedral City is a brand name for a cheddar cheese, see http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/opb/cheese/cathedralcity.shtml
Despite its manufacturer's hype, there are many many brands of cheddar, and this particular brand has no particular reason to be included and described as a "type" of cheese. Its not. If there was more content on this page, or some prospect of there being so, it might be a more reasonable entry.Francis Davey 20:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have made a mistake with the listing for deletion process. Hopefully some kind person will help me out. For a dyslexic person it was almost impossible to follow the process. Francis Davey 20:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- It seems you did alright to me. Don't worry it gets easier after the 3rd or 4th one. Anyway, if it's just a brand name then delete. Too many consumer products in wikipedia already. -R. fiend 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete spam. Flowerparty 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable (due to high market penetration & history) British brand name from a very large public company. Suggest it is expanded. Jasoncart 22:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Its only 9% of the cheddar market http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=143815 does that really merit inclusion? I thought it was a fairly recent brand of any significance. Certainly doesn't have the fame of (say) "Gold" and "Country Life" other brands of the same country. Any evidence on the history? Francis Davey 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep yes it is a brand name but it is very notable in the UK. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. Seems like this is a brand that could easly be include in Dairy Crest's article. I would also support changing the Cathedral City redirect to a DAB so that the merged information can be found. If the article seemed like it could have been expanded I would gladly have voted keep. Vegaswikian 00:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Dairy Crest with redirect to a disambiguation, per Vegaswikian. Aecis 15:08, 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.
[edit] New AfD
This article was deleted before, someone re-created it, I am re-submitting for AfD for commercial spam. Delete spam -- Tawker 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war
Source text, rather than an article about the resolutions and their (non-)effectiveness, which would have encyclopedic merit. Only referenced from two articles. Propose transwiki Content moved to WikiSource, article can be deleted. - choster 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiSource, and change the reference in Iran-Iraq War.-Poli (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
- keep.--Zereshk 22:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki. And you don't need to put it up on VfD to transwiki, there's tags for such purposes. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, instructions implied a VfD was required. - choster 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wikisource. JamesBurns 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've copied the material to Wikisource. - choster 15:59, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jesse Richards
This is a vanity page. This person is not a notable artist, neither locally, regionally or nationally. This stub has been linked to the New Haven listing to gain notoriety and has been unjustly been listed under "notable new haveners." This stub is autobiographical, being posted by the subject of the article. This article is purely used to promote the artist and the movement of "stuckism," which deserves an article.
- Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a vanity page. Richards is a well-known artist and filmmaker both within the New Haven community, as well as within the East Village underground scene and the London art scene. His work has been shown in different galleries in the US, UK and Europe, including a UK national gallery, the Walker. He's had a film in a major film festival, the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival in 2003. All of this information can be verified easily by Googling his name. It seems to me that this James Burns has some sort of personal issue with Mr. Richards and is dealing with it in this way.
- Keep not a vanity page. Adam Malec 11:31 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This guy was featured in a Stuckist show at Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. He's a prominent Stuckist--the term comes from an insult by Tracy Emin, who told her then-boyfriend that he was still "stuck" in figurative work and painting as opposed to her more conceptual work. The boyfriend, Billy Childish, went on to found the art movement. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:36, 4 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.
