Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 26

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 Delete Redwolf24 05:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell kohn

Vanity, and an advertisement for a company. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C ----- 00:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete. Clear vanity. Forgot to sign, sorry. Agentsoo 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete vanity, ad. --TheMidnighters 00:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete vanity hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete Advertising, vanity. Forbsey 00:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete Non-notable, advertising. Gblaz 01:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete Seems awfully enchanted. Ad. Probell 11:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete I'd say it's more vanity than advertising. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete, vanity ad. Hall Monitor 19:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete vanity/ad/spam. --Etacar11 23:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 08:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete vanity, non-notable and random. Ashmodai 10:35, 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 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 Redwolf24 06:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{Keeley, outside of the Page 3 girl fame, is not notable enough to have her own entry on Wikipedia. The lack of verifiable data also renders this page worthless. Unless she's done something of notability, the entry on the Page 3 girl article regarding Keeley is sufficient. Also, grounds for deletion should also include this article being one of vanity. Thus, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

• ^{Abstain. Would like to see this article expanded before casting a final vote. —RaD Man (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{Comment: I've not been able to find any via any Google searches. (Maybe she's known by another name?) In any event, I'm notifying the user who created the page that the article has been VfD'ed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete. Not averse to Page 3 girls having an article if there is something to say about them, but (as Joe Beaudoin Jr. says), there is nothing useful about her on Google so it is hard to see this article being expanded into something worth having. Would be willing to change my vote if the page is given some more useful information though.}
• ^{Delete No notability established. --TheMidnighters 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete. Easy to look at; hard to establish notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete per Fernando hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Weak delete. The article's content is much the same as that of Anna Taverner was before the latter was deleted. Might be worthy of an article, but it would have to be better than this to merit a keep vote. Flowerparty talk 01:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete Being a Page 3 girl is not enough in itself unless she has done other things to become notable. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I believe that this page can be expanded and that there is no need to delete it for the time being7121989
• Delete — nn — RJH 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have to give articles time to expand. -- Crevaner 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted by multiple voters, simply being a Page 3 girl is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She is so sexy. Wikipedia needs more sexy girls. I'm serious. We have too many articles on SQL servers and Linux hashes. We need more sex. Please keep this. She is the sexiest girl I've seen in a long time.--Muchosucko 07:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Expand. Ashmodai 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• For the reasons that I gave in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anna Taverner, which apply here too, Delete. Uncle G 13:53:54, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons other page 3ers were. -R. fiend 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• MERGE into List of Page 3 girls 132.205.3.20 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no real claim to notability.--Pharos 04:19, 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. Redwolf24 06:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn band vanity. no Allmusic page, couldn't find much of anything on Google. TheMidnighters 01:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Most google hits for Secret Public seem to be about the Buzzcocks' fan club. Perhaps redirect, and add some info to that article. Pburka 01:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• see above, plus no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete. Friday 04:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable. Robert A West 19:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:50, 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 Keep Redwolf24 06:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn corner store vanity, ad. TheMidnighters 01:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Three hundred stores is sufficiently notable. Pburka 02:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

So any store is notable as long as there are 300 of them? Even if there's no other usefull/notable information concerning them? Just wondering if there's any Wikipedia policy for something like this. --TheMidnighters 02:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just discretion for this issue gren 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I have to agree with Midnight...this is not notable. freestylefrappe 02:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's an official policy. I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia talk:Companies, corporations and economic information. But a company with 300 convenience stores must have hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of customers. To me, this level of exposure constitutes notability. Pburka 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, while Pburka makes a good point, it gets only 415 unique Googles. This is surprisingly few; I suppose this must be because it is of only very local consequence. However, to be of only local consequency and get hundreds of Googles is also fairly unusual. -Splash 04:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pburka. --Pagrashtak 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- as long as article is careful about verifiable information and doesn't lean towards advertising. gren 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move → Plaid Pantry, keep as per Pburka. ^…Markaci 2005-07-26 T 07:41:40 Z
• Keep (and move to Plaid Pantry, as Markaci suggested). Now that I think on it, I've seen those stores very often in Portland. I imagine there is some interesting cultural and company historical information that could go in the article. I'll add it to my ToDo list, for when I get back to Portland. JesseW 07:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and rename, as above). The article is poor currently but could surely be expanded into something useful. Agentsoo 09:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as Plaid Pantry. Too many localized chains have articles to deny this one. To be encyclopedic they should have more information than a phonebook ad however. --Wetman 10:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm from the Northwest, and it's definitely iconic... compare to WaWa Predawn 18:24, 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. Redwolf24 06:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically, a Google search has come up with no verifiable means of expanding the entry. Also, the model is an unnotable Page 3 girl that does not merit a page of her own. This is the same issue that exists with the Keeley article. Therefore, the article should be deleted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Joe. freestylefrappe 02:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete being a Page 3 girl is not notable in itself and a Google search couldn't establish other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no standalone encyclopdic value. -Splash 04:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- spike it! DavidH 05:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Another non-notable that is unlikely to see any significant expansion. Agentsoo 09:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 06:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Very small time. Fourteen google hits says not notable. Denni☯ 02:16, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. freestylefrappe 02:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also: severe question mark over Brittain Fraley... an avid swimmer? Flowerparty ^talk 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Brittain Fraley is listed farther down.
• Delete. nn vanity. Agentsoo 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. one of the keep votes was discounted as his only edits. Redwolf24 06:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Article about a scholar of Christianity. I've tried various searches on Google and much of this is unverifiable (also, it smells strongly of a vanity production). -- Hoary 02:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has a broad resume but simply not notable enough in any one area. --TheMidnighters 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ONE relevant Google. I tagged it as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Little too quick on the trigger finger, there, Lucky. The article does assert notability of a sort. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • What did you search for? "Brent Walters" picked up about 600 hits for me. -Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I got about that same number, but only the first one on the list seemed to have anything to do with him. I couldn't find anything else. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, things like "Brent Walters" "Centre(er) for..." get no google hits at all, and just his name gets some 600, but not all are his. Would appear to fail the WP:PROF test. I wonder why his TV appearances haven't generated more note; normally that'd help him squeeze past the prof-test-Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, notable enough. Kappa 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, might be notable enough. Would change to an unqualified keep if references were added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A Google search for "Brent Walters" and "Nicene" yielded 17 hits and "Brent Walters" and "Didache" yielded 20. That's more than one, but still pretty low. However, his 1991 book on the Didache did have some favorable reviews and no negative ones that I saw. Given the apparent recognition he has within narrow focus of his scholarship (ante-Nicene), I'll give an article on him the benefit of the doubt, barely. The lack of details (name of his book and other publications, where he went to college, etc...) lead me to believe that this is not self-promotion, contrary to Hoary's conclusion. DS1953 04:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. While a search on either Yahoo! or Google might not produce many noteworthy results, typing "Brent Walters" along with terms such as "Didache", "Church", "Christianity", "Nicene" will certainly result in more hits. Also, there were results when I typed "Brent Walters" and "radio" into a Yahoo! search. It quickly showed that he was in fact on a radio show as a guest. Lack of hits on search engines can likely be attributed to the obscurity of his scholarship, as mentioned above. (ie: how often does the term "Didache" even get mentioned in any church?). Nonetheless, a quick search of amazon.com quickly produced a title published by him along with some very positive reviews. He was also quoted in at least one other book as a scholar (once again, through an amazon.com search). --Wenwen2099 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 08:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or maybe mention in an article on Centre for Early Christian Studies. This, methinks, is vanity. -R. fiend 15:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete average professor CDC (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, borderline notable. Hall Monitor 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. 67.117.148.242 (talk · contribs) removed all but two delete votes from this discussion. android79 23:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/vanity. --Ragib 23:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

nn band. "Véronique Diabolique" (w/ é or e) gets 173 Google hits. It also has a redirect at Véronique diabolique. Delete - DNicholls 02:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. This was speedy deleted by an admin and then restored by an admin earlier today. IMO, this should have been speedy as notability is not determined. Bollar 02:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bollar, the criteria for speedy deletion say nothing about notability. You may wish to attempt to have this changed. However, it will be an uphill battle, as lack of notability isn't even mentioned as a factor that may lead to deletion via VfD. Please see Importance. -- Hoary 03:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • While we're on the topic, there is a criterion, A7, that refers to notability, but it applies only to "real people". There is a continuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C about the bands side of things. -Splash 04:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. -- Hoary 03:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability as per WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Unfortunately, the attempt to place band vanity articles into the speedy category failed, so this is the right place for this article. I will also respectfully disagree with you, Hoary. Article criterion #7 says "(a)n article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" is speediable. That pretty much has to do with notability. Denni☯ 03:19, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. I thought band vanity was part of the new criterion. I'm glad to learn that it isn't not because I like band vanity articles, but so I don't tag them incorrectly. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sure looks like a hoax. Hoaxes can be speedied (depends). At any rate, this is close to just nonsense. They're a French band, but they're not French. They have no records. They wanted to reach out to a twin sister somewhere (but not near) with the music? No one else's "Internet ha-ha" detector is ringing? There are enough internal inconsistencies for me to have gone along with a speedy (but not to fight for it). Delete in any case. Geogre 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:53, 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. Redwolf24 06:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. TheMidnighters 02:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Flowerparty ^talk 02:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Agentsoo 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Truly less important than some drummer of a band that hasn't had a hit yet? --Wetman 10:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. In my hierarchy, at any rate, we have significant organizations that require articles, and then there is a much smaller subset of significant individuals whose participation in such a group makes them in need of biography. Please note that the most significant and wonderful organization in the world does not lead to biographies of every person in the organization. A biography is required when the biography itself is notable, when the person is known outside the organization. Otherwise, you'd say something of the person in the article on the organization and simply redirect the name to that article. In this case, we have an organization that is not significant enough for an article and some dude in it. Geogre 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• In the unlikely event that Westlake Data Corporation gets kept, merge with it. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete as nn. Denni☯ 23:37, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

nn, (nearly private) belief system. Nets a grand total of 45 Google hits for Imovinn, and two for Truths of Imovinn (no quotes). Basically promotion. Delete- DNicholls 02:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Imovinn.--DNicholls 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It might also be noted that both entries contain big chunks of copied text from the promoted site.--DNicholls 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia's policy to discriminate against religious belief systems simply on the basis of numbers? Yes, much of the text has been taken from the organization's web site. As it has adequately been described there, I saw no need to reword the descriptions. - Luna Faye

With all due respect to your beliefs, this is just a matter of whether this is an encyclopedic entry. WP is not a place for advertisement, or advocacy, and there must be a bar set for notability, as it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lastly, depending on who is writing this, it could even be considered original research. If the belief system becomes notable, I don't see an impediment to its inclusion, but it's just too soon. Thanks and all the best to you. --DNicholls 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can prove notability and/or cite some legitimate references. Don't take it personally, Luna Faye. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. android79 03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn jamesgibbon 14:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What exactly would you consider "notability or legitimate references"? The Pæthieon of Imovinn is Incorporated by the state of Ohio, and is in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal 501c3 statute. I happen to be ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism and the Universal Life Church, and am registered with the state of Ohio to perform services in all Ohio counties. I hold Doctorates in Divinity and Metaphysics, and am a Certified Reiki Master. How much more "legitimate" would you like? - Luna Faye

• Delete Lots of things are incorporated by the state of Ohio, but they are not all notable. Perhaps it's not entirely fair to rely on numbers - but numbers are, at the end of the day, the best way for the Wikipedians to judge impact, and impact is what speaks to notability, in my view. And yes, the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable, though I wouldn't know if I would say that about the Church of Spiritual Humanism - Google indicates that far fewer people have even heard of it, its impact is likely less. But this is beside the point, Luna Faye. The notability of your religious affiliations won't convince people that another religion, which you are also interested in, is notable. If Billy Graham, George W. Bush, and Jesus got together and started a new relegion and, for whatever reason, relatively few joined or talked about it or cared, then it wouldn't be notable. Sirmob 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable: Ooh, thank you; this means that my ordination is notable. Wanna be ordinated too, Sirmob? (This may serve to impress the pious.) Costs nothing, takes only three minutes! Just click HERE, and then on the yellow tab "FREE ONLINE ORDINATIONS > MORE". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And yet Spiritual Humanism does have a Wikipedida article and external link, though being considered less than notable? So precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye

Actually, you'll notice that's the abstract term, which is notable, not the church. The church is just linked.--DNicholls 04:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye

• For me, it's less about numbers, and more about impact on the world at large. Your group might be important and interesting to its own members, but otherwise, no one is likely to care. Show us some verifiable, reliable sources that indicate interest in your group from the outside – newspaper or magazine articles, for example. It may be that your group is too new to have garnered any outside coverage, but that would then be part of the problem. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you should not attempt to use it to promote your beliefs. android79 04:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable, but more importantly, the "List OF Truths" is a POV in itself. Hamster Sandwich 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To claim you and your belief system are being discriminated against in this proceedure is offensive. Hamster Sandwich 04:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are two OUTSIDE articles that I had nothing to do with: Chronicles of Avalon http://www.chroniclesofavalon.com/current.html

Traditions Magazine http://www.traditionsmagazine.com/features.html

Be offended all you want. To claim that a belief system is not notable simply because it is new or does not have vast numbers of members simply is discrimination. This is not upholding the idea of "free, open content, community-built encyclopedia" that Wikipedia claims.

• • Comment Luna Faye misunderstood my use of the word offensive. I meant it in the sense of one attacking another for disagreeing with their POV. I felt Luna Faye was being offensive by their implication that the discussion and reasoning for this topic to be considered for a vote for deletion was discriminatory. Luna Faye has however, indicated that they are comfortable with offending people. Good Luck, in your future endevor! Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone please tell me in no uncertain terms, since people can't seem to agree on what makes something notable, how many outside articles, or members Imovinn will require, so that I might know when to resubmit the article? - Luna Faye

• As I said, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of info. There's no strict number, but as a general rule: when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it. (And I am trying to say that in all charity, excuse me if it sounds harsh.)--DNicholls 04:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Good first rule of thumb. As I said, from my perspective it's rarely really about numbers, numbers are just often a good indicator of underlying impact. And I don't think additional sources exactly quoting you or written by you are ever going to count strongly towards the total. Sirmob 04:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• There is no concrete number. Inclusion is determined by community consensus. We have set standards for some things, but not for religious groups (or so far as I am aware). I will have a look at your references at a later time. android79 04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quote "when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it." Well that doesn't make much sence. Who better than the founder of something to understand and describe it's ideas and principals? - Luna Faye

Answer: An objective, disinterested, outside observer. We don't want Oprah writing the article about Oprah, for example. As harsh as that might sound, we dedicated Wikipedians apply the same standard here. If you are a scientist, a religious movement, a politician, a corporate executive, or a professor, your impact and accomplishments have to be well-enough known for other people to write about them. Read the Neutral Point of View and What Wikipedia is Not guidelines for more info.

Honestly, no one is discriminating, except in the sense of making choices. It is no reflection on the validity or worthiness of the religion as a belief system. When we say not notable, we mean it hasn't had a broad effect on the world yet, and one of the Wikipedia guidelines is that you don't get to use this encyclopedia to help it achieve that notability. DavidH 05:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone without bias or personal interest who can write a fair, objective entry rather than copy and paste material from their promotional website? --TheMidnighters 05:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote "And I don't think additional sources exactly quoting you or written by you are ever going to count strongly towards the total." You're right, I did write the article for Traditions Magazine. I forgot I had written that one. My bad. I didn't however, even know about the other article untill recently doing a Yahoo search for Imovinn. I can't help it that the author chose not to alter the definition of Imovinn in any way. I'm not displeased by it, I just had nothing to do with it. - Luna Faye

• Delete as promotion for insignificant "religion". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a promotion for any philosophy. This is not a report on an existing entity. Nothing encyclopedic about this article. --Wetman 09:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If anyone can write a page about their religion which we are not permitted to delete on the grounds of political correctness, regardless of notability, then we might as well have a new page for every person on the planet. However I would be open to this page reappearing if the religion gains any kind of notability outside its followers on the Internet. Agentsoo 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified)--Doc (?) 12:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just like not every law firm and doctor's office, filled with perhaps notable intellectuals, deserves an entry. Just because it's a "religion" doesn't give it special standing. Mmmbeer 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Just a big list o' beliefs. This is non-discursive, not an article. Are these beliefs significantly discussed and documented by outsiders that an encyclopedia needs to explain these matters? If so, it should be easy to demonstrate newspaper, religious journal, and Google hits that will allay concerns. What would not happen, though, is a list of apocrypha. Geogre 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, microfaith without demonstrated external significance verified. Policy proposal: Modify Doc Glasgow's proposal to read "Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified 'by the government')." Otherwise we'd be putting articles in every time somebody gets ticked off and kills the cult's founder. Barno 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • Eminently sensible. There should be some limits, after all. I second the motion. Hamster Sandwich 03:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn faith. JamesBurns 08:54, 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. Redwolf24 06:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In conjunction with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Truths of Imovinn. nn, (nearly private) belief system. Nets a grand total of 45 Google hits for Imovinn, and two for Truths of Imovinn (no quotes). Basically promotion. Delete -DNicholls 02:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It might also be noted that both entries contain big chunks of copied text from the promoted site.--DNicholls 03:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia's policy to discriminate against religious belief systems simply on the basis of numbers? Yes, much of the text has been taken from the organization's web site. As it has adequately been described there, I saw no need to reword the descriptions. - Luna Faye

With all due respect to your beliefs, this is just a matter of whether this is an encyclopedic entry. WP is not a place for advertisement, or advocacy, and there must be a bar set for notability, as it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lastly, depending on who is writing this, it could even be considered original research. If the belief system becomes notable, I don't see an impediment to its inclusion, but it's just too soon. Thanks and all the best to you. --DNicholls 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can prove notability and/or cite some legitimate references. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. android79 03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• What exactly would you consider "notability or legitimate references"? The Pæthieon of Imovinn is Incorporated by the state of Ohio, and is in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal 501c3 statute. I happen to be ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism and the Universal Life Church, and am registered with the state of Ohio to perform services in all Ohio counties. I hold Doctorates in Divinity and Metaphysics, and am a Certified Reiki Master. How much more "legitimate" would you like? - Luna Faye
  • The discussion is not about the legitamacy of your personal credentials but the notability of the subject matter, and as it stands I don't think the articles establish enough notability to warrant entries. Delete. --TheMidnighters 04:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But do you really want to make an issue out of the legitimacy of your personal credentials? Before doing so, you may note that I too am ordained by the Universal Life Church. (So can anyone be; it takes three minutes and costs nothing.) Incidentally, please sign your comments; you do this by hitting the twiddle key four times: ~~~~. -- Hoary 05:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vote for the reasons I mentioned on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Truths of Imovinn. Sirmob 04:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. Also POV (see par. 4) In addition, an organization "in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal (sic) 501c3 statute" is not the same as actually having been granted the status of a non-profit organization. Could be construed as an advertisement. Also, as per the above arguments DNicholls and Fernando Rizzo. Hamster Sandwich 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promotion of "religion" of negligible significance. -- Hoary 05:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified) --Doc (?) 09:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Agentsoo 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Mmmbeer 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already given jamesgibbon 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Original research is a deletion guideline violation. Thus, Wikipedia is not the place to announce your religion, to negotiate ultimate truth, or to proselytize. In the case of religion, philosophy, and all else, it is discussion and documentation outside of the participants that will generate the need and the possibility for an article. Geogre 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. I hoist you on my cyber shoulders.Hamster Sandwich 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and the "Truths of" VfD. Barno 00:13, 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. Redwolf24 07:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete no google hits, looks like a vanity page, would be a userfy, but it's by an anon IP. --Etacar11 03:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Can we temporarily userfy it anyway? Seems like a regular wikiworker, if it's the same person. Barring that, Delete.--DNicholls 03:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you userfy if the creator is an anon? --Etacar11 03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sprawling, rambling vanity. Unfortunately makes a claim to notability in the last paragraph, so IMO it can't be speedied under CSD A7. android79 03:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --TheMidnighters 03:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Why do people go to all that effort (even Wikilinking it) without reading the guidance first? Right there in the box at the top of the page... -Splash 04:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as clear and present vanity. --FCYTravis 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a shame it can't be speedied. Agentsoo 09:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's tosh jamesgibbon 14:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity. Hall Monitor 17:22, 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. Redwolf24 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable high school clique. Gazpacho 03:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No Google results for "Millard Fillmore Gang" [1] and the concept of a gang dedicated to the memory of President Millard Fillmore seems implausible. Capitalistroadster 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable nonsense -Harmil 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and they don't even link to their supposed avatar, Millard Fillmore. He'd be pissed! Hamster Sandwich 03:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable, almost patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 08:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But maybe one for BJAODN? Raised a giggle in a few places. Agentsoo 09:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bogus hoax vanity nonsense. --Wetman 09:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though with a heavy heart. Am I the only one who absolutely loves the idea of a gang inspired by Millard Fillmore? RidG (talk) 18:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/joke. --Etacar11 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with CR and HS. As an Upstate New Yorker, I hoped for better than this. From the article, commenting on the former gang's dissolution: "The only way Millard Fillmore would have wanted power [to shift hands] would be through unfortunate death." The closest that we can come is deletion. Barno 00:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. This one's great. --Idont Havaname 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Idont. BJAODN. -- Pc13 18:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 03:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Burrowes

Vanity. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 03:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as clear vanity, as well as the image. --TheMidnighters 03:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure about procedure for the image since he uses the image on his User page and he has made (what I'm assuming are) useful contributions to Warrimoo, New South Wales. AlistairMcMillan 03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realize, should have checked. --TheMidnighters 04:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy under CSD A7; notability not asserted. Already userfied. Leave the photo alone, since it's on his user page. android79 03:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. Seems like a nice enough lad. Come back when you're famous, kid! Hamster Sandwich 04:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy no assertion of notability. -Splash 04:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not speedy because making short films is possible claim of notability. However, no evidence is presented that those films have been shown outside his immediate circle of family and friends. Userfy if he is a contributor. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; already userfied by the creator. NatusRoma 05:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I too am not convinced about the eligibility for speedy. But already userfied so no big deal. Agentsoo 10:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 07:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Based upon the content of the article, this musician does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC and is not notable. Additionally, a google search reveals zero hits, further supporting the conclusion that notability has not been established and also making it difficult to verify the facts in the article. Tobycat 04:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Why, those are very good reasons to Delete--DNicholls 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Indeedy they are. The Roosevelt Symphony Orchestra only collects 4 hits, too. Delete. -Splash 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Conclusive nomination. Agentsoo 10:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn trombone player vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:56, 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. Redwolf24 07:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

An Everquest player. Yes, that's all. Really. I mean it. But I am unsure if I can speedy this, so I'm bringing it here, and then can use the result of this Vfd for future judgement. So vote wisely, for The Avatar is wa--no, wait, wrong game. :) Garrett^Talk 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately not speediable. Nuke the picture, too. android79 04:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not speediable since it is not about a real person, as CSD A7 (regrettably) insists. There was a proposal about online characters but it managed to fail. -Splash 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I would have counted this as about a real person, since "Neruj" is an Everquest player as well as the character (but I also see an assertion of notability, so no speedy because of that). --Dmcdevit·t 05:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. - Thatdog 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Clear delete. Just short of speedy. Agentsoo 10:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn evercrackcruft. --Etacar11 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft. JamesBurns 08:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles about RPG player characters are not fancruft. You see, fancruft is of interest to fans. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yikes. A Zek PKer who quit when SOE changed the rules to disallow ganking newbies under level 5. Can we just redirect this to assclown? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Ashmodai 10:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 07:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

National Lampoon -- remember that? Back when your parents were your age -- er, no, a bit further back than that -- it was an amusing magazine. Then the name was applied to a succession of movies that usually got terse descriptions such as "bomb" or "dud".

So what's this about then? A film that hasn't been issued, starring Paris Hilton. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; wait till this is released. -- Hoary 04:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

PS Gosh, this really turns out to exist and to be coming soon. I must have misread "2005" as "2006", or perhaps I even more sleepily misread my position in the space/time continuum as 2004 rather than 2005 (I had a hard night last night): either way, I got the impression that the celluloid muse was promised to grace us with this opus over a year from now. I take it all back. The IMdB synopsis makes the film sound terribly thrilling, and I bow to Capitalistroadster's judgement when he says (below) that it "has a notable star in Paris Hilton" (my underlining for emphasis). So keep! Millions of readers of WP want to know! -- Hoary 09:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it has an entry at imdb -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417056/combined, and there have been a couple of news items about it (although really more about its cast) -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417056/news. See also http://movies.hsx.com/servlet/SecurityDetail?symbol=PLEDG, http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=10221, and http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/526/526381p1.html. John Barleycorn 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hamster Sandwich 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This film already gets over 4500 Google Hits [2] has been filmed and in post-production for release later this year and has a notable star in Paris Hilton. Trailers are already in cinemas and online. Verifiable and notable. If we delete it now, it will simply be recreated in a few months time. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We don't delete an article on a movie because you don't think it's funny. --malathion ^talk 06:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and your crystal bawls. —RaD Man (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or stop the movie from being produced -- either will do. gren 07:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per John Barleycorn. ^…Markaci 2005-07-26 T 07:44:19 Z
• Strong Delete Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally (this is not grounds for deletion), there is no information here besides the IMDB details. Halidecyphon 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per John Barleycorn -newkai | talk | contribs 12:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing noteworthy in the article and unlikely to be until the movie is (ever) released. Garglebutt 13:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is precedent for articles on unreleased (but confirmed) films, and this one seems to be pretty much a done deal. 23skidoo 14:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, concur with Hoary's change of mind jamesgibbon 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not much encyclopedic about it now, but it's scheduled for a November release; it'll just be an unnecessary duplication of effort to re-create it then. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Please try to maintain your enthusiasm, i'm sure this will be the best movie ever, but no reason to squat on a page, just wait till its out.--Kilr0y 22:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The anonymous creator and "keep" voters are "squatting on a page" in one sense for the next several months. Some of the "delete" voters are "squatting on a page" in another sense in their voting. I wish there were more than the iMDb (however that's capitalized) to go from, but that and precedent are just enough to make me vote keep. Nothing noteworthy is likely to exist after the film is released, unless the kid asking about nudity in the IMDB forum gets his wank-wish. "Nicky Hilton" is listed as being cast as "Unknown". That shouldn't change. Barno 00:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 08:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rather than recreate the thing four months later. Ashmodai 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - misuse of crystal ball argument must end. Proto t c 11:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --*drew 07:32, 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 Delete and Redirect Redwolf24 07:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant of a lot of articles, most notably Mario. Merge, if anything, and delete. K1Bond007 05:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I would vote merge, but I don't think there's anything in this article that doesn't already exist in the proper place. --Pagrashtak 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Pagrashtak. --Maustrauser 05:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mario and... uh... Luigi. - Thatdog 05:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for those who somehow come upon a misspelling like this...to either Mario Bros. or Mario -- having redirects lessens chance of being created again. gren 07:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. There may be a few bits of info here worth merging; for example, the picture of Charles Martinet. He's not quite notable enough to get his own page, IMHO. Agentsoo 10:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Charles Martinet already has his own article, complete with picture. --Pagrashtak 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect, in agreement with Pagrashtak's two comments so far. Barno 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything on this article is covered elsewhere. Binadot 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Merge Mario bio with Mario page and Luigi bio with Luigi Page... --Mjvan12 02:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to merge. JamesBurns 08:59, 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. Redwolf24 07:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: this is just a joke on a TV show that is of no lasting interest. I'm not from the US, so forgive me if this is, in fact, an encyclopedic joke. -Splash 05:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although I immediately knew what this article was about when I read the name. This is a one-time joke on one episode of The Daily Show, not encyclopedic. I hope you meant that the joke had no lasting interest and not the show itself, or else I'm offended ;) --Pagrashtak 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nicely put...that's exactly what I meant!! -Splash 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete jokesterism. Hamster Sandwich 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and I just saw this last night and laughed my a** off. unsigned by DavidH--DNicholls 06:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: there's nothing wrong with this, if there is a wikipedia user that actually wonders whether or not there was a Rufus Pfükke, I believe wikipedia should provide the truth to anyone dedicated enough to think to use wikipedia to answer a question unsigned by 152.163.100.70--DNicholls 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I can't tell you how long I searched for Rufus Pfükke on Google tonight! It's silly to not have it. It's a potential serious question. If edited to further seem serious, it could be a valuable page. unsigned byY2kevbug11 --DNicholls 06:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am getting zero google hits. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 13th edit (he is creator of this article). And if it doesn't show on google he couldn't have spent too much time looking for it. -R. fiend 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn and opens an unwieldy precedent. --DNicholls 06:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to The Daily Show] Snargle 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into The Daily Show. I've copied it into there, the only thing left is to apply the redirect when the VfD is over. JesseW 08:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I don't think this is important enough to be one of five items under "Notable stories and events", let alone the first listed. If the consensus of this vote is delete and not merge, I propose deleting it from the Daily Show article. If all jokes of this magnitude or greater were given equal space, the Daily Show article would take up hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. --Pagrashtak 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh come on, how many people do you think actually looked up Mr. Reameduptheass? Pfükke sounds like a real person. There are certain jokes that attract a level of curiosity that would warrant at least a simple explanation. Now we are complaining about the SIZE of the potential encyclopedia? Is the internet full? Thousands of pages on just one topic would be a true research oasis.--Y2Kevbug11 11:17:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not complaining about the size of the encyclopedia, I am complaining about the size of an article. My comments above are intended to counter the proposal to merge. My argument is that is if we are compelled to include Mr. Pfükke, then we must also inslude Mr. Reameduptheass and Mr. Shaft and anyone else mentioned. Now look at the size of the current text for Pfükke and multiply that by three to include the other two I've just mentioned. This is conservatively small, as this was just a small part of a longer segment. Now, multiply that size by the number of segments on a typical Daily Show episode, say three to pick another conservative number. Now multiply that by the number of Daily Show episodes that have aired since its first episode in 1996. What we arrive at is too lengthy for an article, hence merging is not a viable option in my opinion.
        Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, though, as this argument may be completely moot. I believe the central question is (or should be): Is Rufus Pfükke encyclopedic? A fictional name invented for a one-time joke on an episode of a comedy show. Not notable, not encyclopedic. --Pagrashtak 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is to my mind deeply unencyclopedic to set the precedent for adding every gag on a comedy show to its article and creating a redirect for that gag. Whilst it is permissible to force the redirect, as you have during the VfD while the discussion continued, it is not the done thing. Now, the VfD is basically redundant along with all the non-redirect votes that had been cast. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Daily Show. Well handled, JesseW. Agentsoo 10:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Daily Show One cannot create an article for every funny bit on the Daily Show. MicahMN | Talk 16:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that move keeps the original article and merges the content to The Daily Show. We can't delete merged redirects, per the GFDL, which I why I find the forcing of this by already merging the content somewhat annoying. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic joke. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This really is a non-encyclopedic joke, and isn't even notable within the context of The Daily Show. Quale 22:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Daily Show. Binadot 01:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn joke. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I'd also like to point out that e.g. German speakers don't immedeatly understand the joke, so maybe some tiny explanation on the English pronunciation of the name would be helpful (although it IS kind of obvious). Ashmodai 10:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. no merge. It's a single joke mentioned once, and unlikely ever to be referenced again. Unless we want the Daily Show article to mention all their jokes (and there are quite a few) this really should be deleted. If being "pfükked" actually makes it into the lexicon we can recreate it then. I ain't holding my breaht though. -R. fiend 15:50, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: it admits to being a neologism in the second section: was used in a small blurb in People magazine...It has time soon enough to be picked up by the public. -Splash 05:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless anybody has actually heard any member of any of the bands mentioned in the article have referred to their music as such. Then I'll change my vote. Hamster Sandwich 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Save Hot Hot Heat is considered neo-new wave. Google it. See this link [[3]].
• Keep. The term has some currency; googling for "neo-new wave" yields 4000 hits. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Vote revised below. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant to say: only about 450 of them are unique. Which suggests that some outlet(s) uses it loads and it isn't much around elsewhere. -Splash 05:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. I'm changing my vote to delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep being of recent coinage doesn't seem like enough to delete it. It otherwise looks like a OK article. Splash, can you point me to some policies, guidelines, or discussions that talk about neologisms. I might change my mind.Delete Thank you, Splash. Those are quite convincing; the article doesn't say "Neo-new wave is a style of music", it says "Neo-new wave is the name of a style of music." We don't include articles on names for things, we include articles on concepts. JesseW 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most importantly, there is Wikipedia:Neologism, but WP:NOT a dictionary and WINAD also help. There is also WP:NOR, which helps to cover made-up terms: you can't make them up and then put them in WP, because they'd be original dicdefs. Also, the whole 'neologism' thing is used extensively in VfD; take a look through any day's debate, and you'll see neologisms being deleted because they are neologisms. Oh, and don't be fooled by a few hundred Googles; any made-up word can collect that many — we don't want it unless it has so much attention is is encyclopedic at the moment: becoming so in future means the word should only get its article in future, and then only if it has more to say than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems like a term on its way up, in popularity terms. Would be prepared to change my vote if Wikipedia is shown to have strict rules on neologisms, but I see no objection to them once they reach this level of popularity. Agentsoo 10:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • See my response above: we don't keep neologism until they are established parts of language and only then if their article is more than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've heard my hipster friends call bands "neo-new wave", but god knows my hipster friends are only notable for their odd fashion sense, and not for being barometers of English usage. If the term ever becomes widespread, re-create the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New wave music and redirect. — mendel ☎ 19:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary music genres. Note that exactly zero of the bands listed as examples use this term in their own articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. Ashmodai 10:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The page was just blanked by its original author. --Icelight 22:19, 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 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. (See [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bejesus Bejesus at Wiktionary]) Redwolf24 07:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete tagged for speedy ("wiktionary if anything"), but not patent nonsense I think, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is a slang dicdef, and we don't want those. (It is not currently in Wiktionary, btw.) It is already in Wiktionary, so there is no need to Transwiki it; I was mistaken. -Splash 05:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It actually is a little nonsense, that bit about "scientific discoveries" demanding a "more accurate meaning", obviously a joke page. Side note - I wonder if it should it be BeJesus? --Pagrashtak 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep tonight i was sitting around wondering where the word bejesus came from. i looked on wikipedia and it wasn't there! but it was on the internet in other places. so i figured i would educate wikipedia about bejesus. (from 66.235.2.229, creator of Bejesus article) --Pagrashtak 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree. I've added some more to the definition of Bejesus as proof of my devotion. (from 66.235.2.229, creator of Bejesus article) --Pagrashtak 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Tranwiki as per Che Nuevera. And Pagrashtak, nice work on the article ! As someone with many Martimers as relatives, I can assure you its a word that is used constantly. ie "Where in the bejeezuz (bejesus) did you get that plug ugly jacket, by (boy)?"or "Ya scared the livin' bejeesus outta me!) and other various permutations thereof. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know what you're all talking about, it is at Wiktionary, see wikt:bejesus. Now delete (and shame on the anon for impersonating votes). --Dmcdevit·t 07:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from wikipedia -- if it belongs somewhere else put it there, if not, don't. gren 07:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I say keep it. I think this is in fairly wide use, and is informal but not slang. Agentsoo 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have a dictionary. You even named it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What person/concept/place/thing/event is known as "bejesus"? What person/concept/place/thing/event would an article entitled "bejesus" be about? Uncle G 11:37:00, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • We also have Wikipedia:Neologism; we don't hang on to invented words unless there is an encyclopedic article to be written about it. -Splash 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article on the word is currently in Wiktionary. I can find no person/concept/place/thing/event for an encyclopaedia article entitled "bejesus" to be about. That leaves redirects. I'm not convinced that the obvious redirect, to Jesus, would be suitable. A redirect to interjection would not be not correct as per the Wiktionary entry. This isn't a profanity and it's not quite an oath. A redirect either to euphemism or to minced oath is the best possibility, but I'm not convinced. Weak delete. Uncle G 11:37:00, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • I do apologise; I must have misspelt it somehow. -Splash 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no need to apologise. My intention was to draw attention to later developments, that people making the more recent "transwiki" votes appear to have missed. You were not mistaken. What you wrote was correct when you wrote it. Never underestimate the speed of McBot. ☺ Uncle G 17:39:18, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes. I guess this is all my fault. I wrote "I don't know what you're talking about" a little jokingly, since I had just transwikied it seconds before. Erm... ha ha...? --Dmcdevit·t 21:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete - move along there, nothing to see --Doc (?) 12:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - slang dicdef / Alarm 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. Ashmodai 10:58, 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. Redwolf24 07:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an imaginary person in correspondence virtual wrestling games. Doesn't really merit an entry. Probably a vanity post too. Mike 05:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• A thousand times delete, as above. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Anime fan-cruftery. Hamster Sandwich 05:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Agentsoo 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm one of the few remaining fans of correspondence virtual-anything games. For instance, I'm playing a play-by-mail/e-mail game of Breaking Away, a game of team bicycle racing such as a sprint stage of the Tour de France. Nonetheless, I'm not sure any of this character's wrestling "e-federation" has encyclopedic importance, and by WP policy and precedent, no player character in games should have an article kept unless it somehow becomes very well-known through widespread coverage by major media. Delete, throwing out of the ring. Barno 00:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft. JamesBurns 09:02, 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. Woohookitty 07:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dungeon Siege Movie

Delete although IMDb does find "Dungeon Siege", its description appears unrelated to this article, although there is a remake expected in 2006. That alone would be a bit crystal-bally, however, if there is an article in the future for this film, the current offering is not the place to start. -Splash 05:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty damn close to patent nonsense (w/ the level 9 wizard).--DNicholls 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously, but surely BJAODN territory. The Level 9 wizard bit is rather comical. Agentsoo 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting cast -- Jason Statham, Mathew Lillard, Burt Reynolds, Leelee Sobieski, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies? Wow. Still, the only information about a release date is Canada is 2006, no US release date at all. Once there is a firm release date, I will vote keep. Until then, I vote weak deleteJohn Barleycorn 21:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it scores a laugh. Ashmodai 11:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Daily Variety reports today, incidentally, that Claire Forlani has been added to the cast of the film, which is currently being shot in Vancouver. carmeld1 03:21, 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. Redwolf24 07:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This was marked for speedy deletion as band vanity, which, of course, is not a criterion. --Dmcdevit·t 05:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Band-itry, even the author aknowledges its innapropriate. Maybe his agent told him to do it. Hamster Sandwich 06:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-admitted vanity. — JIP | Talk 06:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --DNicholls 06:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- I added an allmusic link -- probably still vanity but they are published and if kept should be moved to The Navies or Navies (band) -- not sure what notability requirements are for musical groups besides being published. gren 07:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they had a national tour or two [4], so they satisfy WP:MUSIC. Kappa 13:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

vanity, Ad, non-notable cohesion | talk 06:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, probably vanity too. Agentsoo 10:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite. Google results > 43k for "Project Dogwaffle" (with quotes) Ashmodai 11:06, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

These people are all NUTS.

Non-notable blog that seems more like an advert. Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 06:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe this is vindictive but when I saw "Anti-Semitic Leftists at "Wikipedia" Delete Joobo, Accept DailyKos" on the site I decided I wanted to be both anti-Semitic and leftist. In other words, not notable and whiny gren 07:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yea, just visited the blog and saw his edits to Daily Kos... Prehaps this guy needs to be enlightened on WP:Civility and just overall good manners =) I mean, for a wise guy, he's not very wise. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Civility aside, I went to his blog, read his "wisdom" and was thouroghly appalled. Tinfoil-hattery at its most preposessing. SPEEDY this if possible. Hamster Sandwich 08:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even although I'm not one of Wikipedia's "Anti-Semitic Leftists" (as Joobo's site now accuses us of being) --Doc (?) 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable blogger.Capitalistroadster 12:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn blogger vanity. JamesBurns 09:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

These creeps ARE both anti-Semitic and Leftists. Losers, all.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Redwolf24 07:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Vanity and advert for a bunch of amateur filmmakers. Delete. Indrian 06:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete violates a handful of what WP is not.--DNicholls 07:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad and nn. --Etacar11 00:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:04, 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. Redwolf24 07:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Nintendo Hard is an adjectival phrase used among older video game players when refering to games that are extremely challenging to play, or even unbalanced against the player." I removed a speedy tag from this article because it doesn't meet the criteria, but I agree that this neologism was probably made up on the spot. Rl 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A dicdef we shouldn't transwiki.--DNicholls 07:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or -- redirect to Battletoads... but then again Mario was hard for me :( gren 07:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The system works! Snargle 07:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an actual expression commonly used in the referenced gaming community. The original author was not very concise and used poor style, as well as jargon that could be perceived as nonsense by a reader who is not familiar with the subject. I cleaned the article up a bit so it is easier to understand.

References:

"This game is hard. Like, old-school Nintendo hard (appropriately enough). Like, sub-second-timing- with-a-four-pixel- margin-of-error- and-dying-restarts-the-entire-section hard." (http://cpe000103c34069-cm014300001653.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com/weblogs/ben/media/games)

"Actually, Zelda II is just plain hard. Not 'challenging'. Not 'difficult'. It's, as we say, 'NINTENDO HARD'.(http://gabtable.stalo.com/viewtopic.php?p=8123&sid=0f430ef53115e8a939ad5c9bb0a750de)

Freerick 10:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It apparently (as shown above) has been used in a couple reviews, but that doesn't make it significant enough. A Google search will get you about 1,700 hits, but none of the first few have anything to do with difficulty level. (They're all about a Nintendo Hard Case, "the economic downturn will hit Nintendo hard," etc. Really the reviews are just saying that a game in question is hard for Nintendo's levels. Like Rl says, it was probably made up on the spot. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a dicdef, but transwiki because I'll believe it's legitimate jargon. Sirmob 13:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm an avid gamer (almost exclusively Nintendo consoles), and I've never heard or come across this phrase without deliberately searching for it. I don't think it's established enough for an article, although I know what the author means. --Pagrashtak 15:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a fairly avid gamer myself, and I've never heard this. It's a dicdef and caveman-cruft anyhow. Nintento hard. Article delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, never heard of this. K1Bond007 22:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one level harder than Nintendo Hard, no transwiki since the consensus is this isn't widely used even among the console's users. Barno 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn phrase. JamesBurns 09:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I imagined "nintendo hard" is what gamers get when playing Nintendo. -R. fiend 15:56, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like original research to me. (WP:NOT) --Alan Au 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete And nonsense beside.--DNicholls 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cut and paste nonsense. Probell 11:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, functional vanity, not an encyclopedic topic. Robert A West 19:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, non-encyclopedic.Mmmbeer 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:06, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David M. Manshel

• Delete. NN looks like a vanity piece A curate's egg 07:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And ew. That hurts to look at.--DNicholls 07:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the above. 19:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Now that's a wall of text. humblefool® 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like a delete to me. No significant Google hits. I get a lot more hits than he does, and I am not a notable person. DanMS 01:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making Charles Law tubes

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 07:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Was a redirect to Making Charles' law tubes, now in Wikibooks -- Egil 04:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would have sworn orphan redirects were speedies. Robert A West 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was just comes under consensus to delete (9 for deletion, 5 against) -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clerical error

If this is factually true, it belongs elsewhere, at Pearl Harbor perhaps. This is not a viable stub for an encyclopedia article. --Wetman`

• Delete--DNicholls 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, viable stub. Kappa 13:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content to Pearl Harbor as this is not a logical endpoint for a search. Garglebutt 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very common phrase, I don't see the argument for it not being a viable stub. --Pagrashtak 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but eradicate unsubstantiated info. I've studied the subject a fair amount and I've never heard anything along the lines of the anecdote referenced therein. Unless someone can point to a reference for that, I'm going to excise it. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Dictionary entry with a garbled anecdote. Assuming that PBS's research and my recall are both correct. IIRC, the intention was to declare war with only minutes of warning, as was done at Port Arthur, and the delay was caused by the need for manual decoding, not a clerical error properly so-called. I can put researching, sourcing and adding to the appropriate article on my personal agenda. Robert A West 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a merge with Pearl Harbor is appropriate, as the phrase only relates to it (very) tangentially. As for an argument as to why it's not a viable stub: this is merely a phrase. It's basically a dicdef, with loosely connected information following it. Such articles seem to fall under: Wikipedia is not a dictionary (esp. list of definitions), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (esp. loosely associated topics), and possibly even original research (esp. secondary sources).--DNicholls 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it your opinion then that this article is incapable of expansion beyond the definition? --Pagrashtak 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Without slipping into the above mentioned categories, yes. --DNicholls 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a dicdef and an only-tangentally-related anecdote that I'm sure is already part of Pearl Harbour --Carnildo 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone writes an encyclopedic (and non-Pearl-Harbor-related) article on clerical errors PDQ. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If any of it is to be included in a Pearl Harbor article it should not be redirected. -R. fiend 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful page, with a good definition -the removal of the Pearl Harbour example, however, may be justified. Nihiltres 21:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The Pearl Harbor stuff is just nonsense. Anyway, I think this might have a potential to be a real article but I'd need some substantial expansion beyond a dicdef to decide.--Pharos 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DNicholls --Allen3 ^talk 09:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deletion carried out by Woohookitty. android79 05:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate Simulation (USSS)

nn game. vanity. ~100 google hits. DNicholls 07:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN game.--Maustrauser 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above cohesion | talk 07:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but possible to ehance Government simulation instead. Eclipsed 07:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I vote delete. I'm exercising my non-simulated senatorial authority. Mmmbeer 21:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Filibuster , oh wait. This isn't a simulation ;-P delete. Karmafist 05:58, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Sklenar

Does not seem notable. Neither the article or the links suggest it, at least to me. I've asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry if they know anything about him. Hopefully they will chime in here. It's also only by one, anon, author, in 2003. And unchanged since then. Delete JesseW 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Full professor in a country that does give that title easily... Still, it is very hard for the average reader to guage anything from this article—it needs soooo much work, including writing the necessary articles to explain his research interests. I'll go for delete unless substantially improved. Physchim62 11:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at the moment, but I suspect that the article will be recreated once Wikipedia contains a critical amount of information to properly describe the research interests of this person. --HappyCamper 12:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please. ~K 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. There are plenty of chemistry professors with an article in WikiPedia, who I have never heard of. I can't tell just whether professor Sklenar would be less important than, e.g., John Markoff (professor), William Goldman (professor), David Cain (professor) and Professor Ronald MacDonald and all those others. Wim van Dorst 21:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment Ug. Well, the idea of Wikipedia is that you should be able to tell they are important, that's the point of requiring notablity. However, this article is clearly no more clear about notablity than any of those. I don't know whether to vfd all of them, or change my vote on this one to keep. Ug. On the other hand, its better to know; so, thanks so much! ;-) JesseW 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not the idea of wikipedia, and neither is "notability". Wikipedia is a collaboration, and editors should be able to add significant information without having to jump through hoops to prove how "notable" everything is. Kappa 06:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, full professor, per Phsychim62 assessment. Kappa 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if expanded. Some notability. JamesBurns 09:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a chemist in itself doesn't cut it. If the article is expanded and shows why exactly this guy deserves mention in an encyclopedia any more than the next guy I might change my vote. -R. fiend 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I met the guy at a conference. He contributed a lot, but not anything of encyclopaedic magnitude. --62.254.128.5 21:42, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc bauer

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 07:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is a vanity insertion by the artist, as User:DaVince, who has made no other edits save those to insert this promo, essentially an ad.

• Delete --Wetman 00:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Not Notable comedian. And this is after I saw his web-site. Hamster Sandwich 08:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:08, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rapssak

Vanity, term not found elsewhere Eclipsed 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 08:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, zero google hits makes notability difficult to establish.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 09:09, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Kubinec

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 08:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

-- lecturer at a university, non-notable. --Sgkay 07:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. --Laura Scudder | Talk 07:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Muhgcee 15:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Mark's a cool guy, but non-notable. Salsb 03:09, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coon (disambiguation)

• Delete. This is not a disambiguation page for various Wikipedia articles Coon, merely a sly chance to air a slur. --Wetman 07:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I rewrote it some (and made the ethnic slur wikilink go to ethnic slur, not the list--edit:blast, guess it goes to that anyway). I have to respectfully disagree. Even if it was, just because it isn't pleasant doesn't mean it isn't the case. The first two versions of the word are in current use, at least, and the last is an actual brand.--DNicholls 08:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, concerning the redirect of coon to raccoon, we could make raccoon the first choice (redirect) and include there a link to the disambig page. Although it might do to consult on that talk page first.--DNicholls 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all those terms are uses of the word. I agree that Raccoon should be the first choice as per DNicholls. Hamster Sandwich 08:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in light of DNicholls' edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I created this disambiguation article specifically because there was a comment on Coon cheese in the nigger article without any background on its validity as a trademark and it has been a subject of occasional debate in Australia. I don't agree with having Raccoon be the first choice however as I've never even heard of that abbreviation until now. (The US is not the centre of the universe guys!) I would argue that very few people would search for Coon to find Raccoon. I vote for leaving the article as is in terms of linkage. Garglebutt 11:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Re the 'coon' equal or not equal to 'raccoon', what about the word/phrase 'coon dog' ? To which meaning do you imagine it refers ? --Simon Cursitor 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on the light of the recent edits.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep useful disambiguation. Capitalistroadster 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like a pretty standard disambig page to me. slambo 18:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those unfamiliar with this term could easily be confused by a reference to it, and turn to Wikipedia for help. -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Coon. I'm under the impression that in the absence of a "main entry" article, dab pages should go without the "(disambiguation)" notice in the title, rather than having what we have here — Coon redirecting to Coon (disambiguation). (But certainly keep, as a useful dab, regardless of ethnic-slur-ness. Heck, the dab page for Hebe mentions it as one spelling of "heeb"!) --Quuxplusone 02:06, 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 Redirect to Marlin Firearms. NSR (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marlin rifle

• Delete This article is a duplicate of a more appropriate article at Marlin Firearms.Gateman1997 03:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms.--DNicholls 08:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms, this doesn't need VfD. —Stormie 08:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. also this article pertains to marlin "rifle"s and describes shot-guns in its text, which have no "rifleing" of the bore, so inappropriate at any rate. Hamster Sandwich 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms. I would vote merge if all the content wasn't already there.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marta Krupa

• Delete - unnotable from content. Delete/merge w/ sister's page. Athf1234 21:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merging isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Deb 22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under the new criteria as non-notable, and making no assertion of notability. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete and no-merge.--DNicholls 08:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Now back to the Marta Krupa synchopated style. Erm, I mean, delete if notability can't be established. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Etacar11 00:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Akasaka Prince Hotel

Tagged for speedy deletion but not a candidate. Appears to be a large luxury hotel. Plenty of google hits. I don't think that hotels are inherently notable, but due to its size and usage as accomodation for politicians, it might be argued that this hotel is. No vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly needs work but sufficiently notable, just. Agentsoo 10:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and kinda notable. Yi Gu recently died there. -- Visviva 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like Yi Gu was born there too, or at least on the site. Kappa 13:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, despite the fact that I can't afford to stay there. --Calton | Talk 13:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable hotel. Capitalistroadster 18:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conquering of the World

Tagged for speedy deletion, but not a candidate. Some sort of book. Unsure of notability. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't check to see if the book was real. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pure fantasy unless a publisher and ISBN number are included. Hamster Sandwich 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; the author is 12 years of age, vanity? Lectonar 13:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no entries for the author in amazon.com, even though some webhits exist.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete nn book, vanity. Robert A West 19:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at the very least, not yet notable. Mmmbeer 21:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no google hits on the title + authors last name. NN kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 00:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and hoax. -- Pc13 19:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Opposition to Islam Dmcdevit·t 19:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Islam

• Delete. Whether these things are true or not, this is a diatribe that has no place in an encyclopedia. --Wetman 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I redirected the article to Criticism of Islam since it's a copyvio.Heraclius 00:43, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Premium Jesus

From the article itself, they "wrote no songs, had no albums and no platnum-record of the year award gracing their shelves, but they did have strong determination and other stuff hero's have". That's great and all, but it doesn't make them notable. Delete. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete Non Notable. They had their chance, and frittered it away. Hamster Sandwich 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• A tongue-in-cheek account of how a group of Australian schoolchildren danced, played hand-ball, and drank a brand-name soft drink — doing everything except forming a band named Premium Jesus. It's completely unverifiable, of course. Delete. Uncle G 10:32:29, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
• A band that never actually played any music in its entire lifetime is the extremity of non-notability. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of compliance to WP:MUSIC is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly nn jamesgibbon 15:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be nominated for the 'Non-notablest WP Article of the Year Award' (we should also create an award like that in Wikipedia)...Just kidding --Neigel von Teighen 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The misplaced apostrophe is just the final straw. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn boyband vanity. --Etacar11 00:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 09:14, 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 transwiki and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soomaali

This text in Somali has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks, but it has not been translated. My suggestion: Transwiki to Somalian Wikipedia and delete. Sietse 10:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete. Note that [[so:Soomaali]] already exists, but looks like it should probably be a redirect to [[so:Soomaaliya]]. Why don't those links show up properly? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rigism

An extension of a forum joke.

To the Rig faithful:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry but the encyclopedia is not a depository for jokes. Please keep your enthusiasm in the thread. The faux rapture in Big Rigs related entries is a nuisance to clean up.

Regards,

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable forumcruft in the extreme. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopaedic.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete nn forumcruft. JamesBurns 09:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is absurd. flipjargendy 18:41, 10 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 merge and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survival techniques

This is a duplicate of Survival skills.

• Unsigned nomination by Pappa

• Redirect to Survival skills. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

• Comment It appears that a redirection has already taken place. Would it be possible to get a (relatively) speedy conclusion on this VFD? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 11:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

Sorry, I posted here before I realised that a redirect was a much better option, so I went ahead with that. --Pappa 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Survival skills, if any addition to the second could be made, otherwise just Redirect.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Universe Organization

There is already a Miss Universe. Antonio Miss Universe Martin

• AntonioMartin (talk · contribs) has placed {{merge}} tags on the article [6], listed it at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles [7], and obviously wants the article merged. Antonio, if you want an article merged, merge it! See User talk:Mito#Miss_Universe, too. Merging doesn't involve deletion, at any stage. Only come here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you want an administrator to actually delete an article, which in this case is clearly not so.

  Nominator is not being bold enough. Rescind nomination so that the nominator can immediately be bolder and get on with doing the merge that xe wants. Uncle G 11:57:09, 2005-07-26 (UTC)

• Comment no need for VfD, as per Uncle G.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the idea was originally to merge the article, but, an unsigned person made me think about that because the person said that the Miss Universe Organization article is very inaccurate, and I think it actually is. A merge is a very soluble solution but I don't know exactly how much can be merged from the Miss Universe Organization article, and under what name should we merge it. Both Miss Universe and Miss Universe Organization are real good names, although I myself think , well, Miss Universe is more popular, but then again, the bone behind it is the organization so the name would be a tossup I guess. As for not being bold, just check me out Friday nights at Applebees when the waitresses ask me to strip dance on the table!!! LOL!!!! (I only go up to my underwear, for lawmakers) LOL.-Antonio Lightly Taking It Martin

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated

This is marked for cleanup and I started cleaning it up myself. However, Google search suggests that this is probably a non-notable vanity page. Better to delete it, I think. Agentsoo 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) - try google TRSI 1 - 10 of about 39,100 for TRSI.

• Weak keep if cleaned up. I remember having heard of them. — JIP | Talk 11:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course - TRSI is one of the most known crack/warez/demo-groups in the computer history. --Avatar-en 12:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. This is VfD, not cleanup. Founded in 1990, TRSI is one of the oldest and well respected warez and demoscene groups known to man. Passes the Computer Underground Notability Test with flying colors. —RaD Man (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not a vanity page. This has been one of the most prolific and well-known cracking groups. Needs serious cleaning though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Are You Kidding Me Keep!??!?! Submitter should be flogged for sole reliance on the "google test" (which policy states should not be the sole means of evaluation) the article itself establishes the notability of TRSI. Agentsoo, please go re-read the VfD submission guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 15:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I had countless games cracked by TRSI. Anyone who used an Amiga back in the days has at least seen one of their cracktros. Paniq 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of 3G phones

I can't really see what the purpose of this list is now. It might have been useful when there were only a handful of handsets on the market, but now there are LOTS and I seriously doubt anyone is going to keep this updated (or create meaningful pages for the handsets). Google is a much better way to find out about the latest and greatest in 3G tech. Probell 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Good arguments; questionable that this will be updated and won't lead to meaningful pages. Mark 11:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a really easy solution for this one (as most lists): Make a category! -newkai | talk | contribs 13:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another unmaintainable list. Robert A West 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-local authority property boom

Delete, advertisement for website. (UK editors - does this topic merit an article that isn't an ad?) FreplySpang (talk) 11:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Eclipsed 11:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and no, the topic doesn't merit an article. --Andrew Norman 12:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete pointless advert. The course of the property market in the UK is highly encyclopaedic but this is just a property firm ad. David | Talk 15:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Also note the existences of Ex-local authority property, Buy to Let ex-local authority property, and Buy to Let ex-local authority properties. This group of articles is looking like Wikipedia:spam, and may be Speedy deletable under criterion G3. Uncle G 15:51:37, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
• Delete, its spam and anyway I live in the UK and have never heard of them. --ßjweþþ (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The right to buy concept introduced by the Thatcher government certainly merits an article. Its probably the most important development in the UK property market in the last 40 years. CalJW 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Would that be the Right to Buy Scheme (linked to directly from Margaret Thatcher)? ☺ Uncle G 02:00:17, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The info is in Right to Buy Scheme. No-one will search under this POV title so I don't see the need for a redirect. Secretlondon 12:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an advert and the idea of a current boom is POV. Right to Buy Scheme seems the right place for any genuine material. William Avery 14:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Bear

This is definitely not a mascot. It is more like an easter egg. So this is not the right place for this entry. At least remove the link to the mascots category. Rcappuccio 11:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Informative and verifiable article. Be bold and remove it from the category if appropriate. -- Lochaber 11:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not a deletion candidate. Kappa 12:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Windows 3.1. Same reason as the Microsoft Bunny just below.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems as notable in its millieu as Moof the Dogcow. Nandesuka 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Windows 3.1, as per User:Poli. JamesBurns 09:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Ashmodai 11:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Saswann 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Bunny

This is definitely not a mascot. So this is not the right place for this entry. At least remove the link to the mascots category. Rcappuccio 11:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Could probably do with a bit more info but it's already marked as a stub anyway. Be bold and remove it from the category if appropriate, alternatively discussion on this topic should be done on the talk page rather than VFD. -- Lochaber 12:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not a deletion candidate. Kappa 12:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Windows 95. I don't think this article can achieve much more that it is right now on its own, and Windows 95 is in need of material anyway.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep and keep as a mascot, and do not merge. The history of bunny and bear go well back before Win95 to NT and Win3.x. It's a unique and notable part of Microsoft history. SchmuckyTheCat 16:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - analogous to Moof. Nandesuka 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (non-sheep-vote) --Simon Cursitor 09:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Windows 95 as above. Ashmodai 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto (movie)

• Delete - This Movie was a TV movie, and its Wikipedia article doesn't even have any notable information! if this article is to stay it needs to be updated! - The Time Killer
  • ...by the way, it was not a TV movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, verifiable film. -- Longhair | Talk 12:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Kappa 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Cleanup - this page needs a cleanup tag, not a VfD, and therefore is improperly listed on VfD and should be speedy kept. Sirmob 13:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid film as many others in Wikipedia. Articles can be fixed and updated, those are not real reasons for being deleted.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep all commercial films, they're all "notable enough." Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 14:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. It's a Ron Howard movie, and he's quite a famous/notable director (Splash, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, The Da Vinci Code...) with multiple Best Picture & Best Director Oscars under his belt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Chairboy 16:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable film by notable director. Capitalistroadster 20:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Notable? Have you actually seen this movie? Hint: it's a Roger Corman production. --Calton | Talk 00:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Expand. Notable film. --WikiFan04^{Talk 16:42, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)}

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 14:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heterophobia

Heterophobia was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-18. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18.

• Delete I'm nominating this again, because I still do not see any validity in the term outside of homophobic groups who think that the idea gays and lesbians acheiving equal rights would somehow affect heterosexuals. Revolución 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete notable, but a really a dicdef - anything more will doubtless be covered elsewhere --Doc (?) 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination explains notability. Encyclopedic topic. Kappa 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think there is much more to add to the article than this dicdef.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete despite a prior VfD this article is still little more than a uncited dictionary definition and this seems unlikely to change. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this encyclopedic topic. This is a well-written stub. --Infobacker 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as Kappa said; btw, we've got a nice example at biphobia as to something which has grown into an article Lectonar 13:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Seth Mahoney 14:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, but mostly because I'm a language stickler. Heterophobia combines the prefix hetero- (other, different) with the suffix -phobia (fear, dislike). Thus, heterophobia should mean "fear of things that are different", or something similar. Heterosexophobia (or something similar) would be a more appropriate term. Sadly, homophobia (which should mean fear of things that are the same or uniform) has taken on the meaning that should be covered by homosexophobia and is wide-spread enough that we must be forced to adopt the new meaning. Heterophobia, however, is not a wide-spread word and I don't see the need for an article promoting the misuse of the word until general use has forced us to. Maybe that's a good reason to delete, maybe it's not. I don't know, but that's the way I feel. --Pagrashtak 15:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Pagrashtak, that's a terrible reason to delete, and would at best be a reason to rename. These accusations of heterophobia exist and have to be treated somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Morwen - Talk 15:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Almost 10000 Google hits, and 5 books found on Amazon featuring heterophobia in the title http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/104-5317081-3720754?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Heterophobia&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go etablishes noteriety. However, from a quick reading on the subject, heterophobia is used to describe fear of the opposite sex in the medical community, not fear of heterosexuals. This article needs to be rewritten, but should exist. Lyuokdea 5:00 July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. In fact, -phobia defines heterophobia as fear of the opposite sex, as did a few pschology-related sites I found after a google search. --Pagrashtak 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The term does, however, get used in the way the article describes, so that definition clearly needs to be maintained in the article in some capacity. Bearcat 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as now written goes beyond a dicdef. The accusation may be baseless most of the time, but the fact that it's made as often as it is establishes notability. Doctor Whom 17:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and real condition if rare.Gateman1997 17:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki I believe that all usage is either waggish or questionable, but given that homoerotophobia gave way to the barbarism homophobia about twenty-five years ago, this form follows, and offensive or waggish usage is still usage. Robert A West 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Lyuokdea pointed out, the only thing wrong with the article is that it's describing the phobia incorrectly. I vote that the page is revamped, but kept. Nihiltres 20:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a significant topic. CalJW 20:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Voting keep once again. My opinion has not changed since previous vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Nandesuka 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A book has been written on the topic and there is widespread usage, so not a non-notable neologism. Valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant term, not a neologism. Sietse 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a neologism, but a somewhat widely-used one. LexisNexis found a few recent uses of it, including a headline from a San Francisco Chronicle review and the first paragraph of a The Spectator article. CDC (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per CDC. --Idont Havaname 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neologism is not sufficient justification for deletion (for instance, inclusion of 'podcasting' etc is exceptionally useful) - nor is a dislike of the usage of a word. --Labbis 19:23, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KONSEC Konnektor

Advertising. 186 google hits.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as advertising, nn. Mmmbeer 21:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete - advertising, copyvio Josh Parris ✉ 08:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western history in a nutshell

My first thought was rename - but this article needs both a new name and new content - this is a POV essay in the style of 1066 and all that - not an encyclopedia article - if an encyclopedic article can be written on the History of the West' (and I have my doubts) this is not where it should start from --Doc (?) 13:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete everything encyclopedic is really "in a nutshell." If anything add an appropriate Timeline#History. Mmmbeer 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, The text is moved from Western culture. Please note that I have created the article with the "clean-up" denomination. I would prefer another name and a cleaned up content.

Problem with cleaning up the articles Western culture and Western world is that many views exist on what Western culture and Western world actually mean (which is a matter of definition).

For some reason, people present these lengthy contributions in these articles.

The added value of seperating this content in a new article and adding "in a nutshell" is to avoid a endless discussion and lenghty contributions in the other two articles. It becomes manageable.

83.162.19.42 15:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Clone of existing article, "in a nutshell" is not encyclopedic. A large article should have leaf sub-articles to keep reasonable size, not clones. Pavel Vozenilek 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this badly-titled fork and return this material to Western culture where it belongs. History of the West would be a good summary article, but this is not it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Merge Why is this not in Western culture? Robert A West 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bad title, since encyclopedia articles should be compendious; and the whole concept has a Whiggish POV. William Avery 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know whether it's productive to talk about "Western History" at all. Title is mildly unencyclopedic. Delete. Slac speak up! 22:05, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ostriching

• Delete -Looks like a dicdef - for a made up word - neologismA curate's egg 14:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - but enhance. Google has 508 listings for this word. Eclipsed 15:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm familiar with this term (or thought so, at least). I was planning to vote keep or transwiki, as I thought it was a fairly common or easily understood term, but then I read the article, which says that it means to hide one's face in fear. The definition I'm familiar is to irrationally ignore a problem out of fear and often indicates a lack of judgment. It stems from the popular misconeption that an ostrich, when frightened, will bury its head in the sand and ignore the problem, rather than dealing with it or taking a wiser course of action, such as running. So I'm going to "ostrich" right now and withhold a vote. --Pagrashtak 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete With the exception of the dicdef in the first line, contains the exact same text as the behaviour section of Ostrich. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've never heard this as a verb. Deb 18:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary as the verb form of "Ostrich". Second preference, delete. Robert A West 20:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 09:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef CDC (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rizo.--Pharos 05:14, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Letter

The article is somewhat promotional, not well written, doesn't seem notable, and doesn't say anything more than (i.e. is apparently copied directly from) the product's linked-to home page. Steve Summit 14:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete advertising and also currently copyvio. The title looks like it ought to be something else anyway, like a form letter. Mmmbeer 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, very misleading title. Pavel Vozenilek 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Robert A West 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy; created by 68.97.208.12 on his vandalism spree. mikka (t) 01:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disco at the Planet of the Apes

I could be wrong, but a Google search for this supposed program yielded nothing. Quite possibly a hoax. Uvaduck 14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think you're wrong. Although it would be great if you were, in a way :D jamesgibbon 15:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absolute nonsense! Pretty funny, but geez! I want you fellow wikipedians to imagine for a second what a Planet of the Apes Dance Special would look like...not to say that I personally wouldn't watch it, but I'm pretty sure I would have remembered it being on TV..even back in 78. If anybody can prove me wrong on this, well I guess I'm a monkey's uncle! Hamster Sandwich 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, apparent hoax. What a pity; I would pay good money for the DVD. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if not a hoax, this can never be more than a substub. Robert A West 20:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Sounds like the Star Wars Christmas Special. --Etacar11 00:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, perhaps? DS 12:16, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disco Grad Student

An article about a non-notable street performer. Delete --Neigel von Teighen 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable street performer. Hamster Sandwich 17:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn performer. JamesBurns 09:22, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freak Elite

Likely vanity, non-notable. 143.127.3.10 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete groups of people who like to play games are not notable. Former gruops even less so. Friday 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. I'll change my vote if I get an article about the friends I used to bike ride with in the 7th. grade. We were wicked! Hamster Sandwich 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn clan vanity. JamesBurns 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• D-elite, for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 18:42, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malibongo

A cocktail thought to be invented in 2005. Gets 6 google hits, but none of them seem relevant. Wikipedia is only for subjects that have achieved a degree, however slight, of encyclopedic notability--some concoction thought up by a group of friends doesn't meet the bar. Sorry. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Similar to the way this drink is "unfettered by a determined recipe", let Wikipedia be "unfettered of a vanity article". Delete.--Scimitar ^parley 15:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it's even patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nowhere near, AFAIK--see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Meelar (talk) 18:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "If being mixed/consumed in a motor vehicle (not by the driver, obviously), it is appropriate to shout out the word "Bongo" every time there may about to be a bump in the road, lest the mixers/consumers get the ratio of ingredients wrong or spill the drink in their lap." That's just silly, and the lack of Google hits confirms its non-notability. --Idont Havaname 18:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes it should be deleted, but hey, we all get silly sometimes. This is obviously a joke so let's maintain a sense of humour and not get too precious... --Mindlelor 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Above comment really by User:172.215.34.77. --Idont Havaname 03:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Above comment not relevant (and insufferably officious). --User:172.215.34.77 07:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio River Showdown

Delete. Nonexistant.

• I looked up the exact phrase "Ohio River Showdown" on Google and Dogpile. I only found its creation on Wikipedia and a "mirror." There is no such rivalry, not at least with this name. Win777 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the facts of the article are true, both teams play in the National League of the MLBA, but I've never heard of the rivalry described as in the title. Could be true, maybe not, but more likely a regional thing. I'll abstain for now till I talk to my rabid Pittsburgh Pirate fan buddy. If he never heard of it, it's probably Not Notable. My personal test, in this case since neither one of us lives within 500 miles of Pittsburgh or Cinncinati. Hamster Sandwich 17:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, made up rivalry by the same user who brought us the A's-Whitesox Derby. Not a real "rivalry". Gateman1997 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a significant rivalry. --Idont Havaname 18:39, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary J Campbell

It appears to be a vanity page. Along with Gary space Motor 15:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, most of the "Gary J. Campbell" hits on google refer to a lawyer named that. After checking "Gary Space" I only find a few relavent links as well. In light of that, I'm going to vote weak delete for now. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Another weak delete. Maybe a vanity article, but certainly seems nn. Anyone can write a book. Agentsoo 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:25, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keystone State Derby

Delete. Nonexistant.

• This "rivalry" was renamed on the List of Major League Rivalries. I also looked up the exact phrase "Keystone State Derby" on Google. I only found its creation on Wikipedia and a "mirror." I also looked up the renamed "rivalry" and found nothing related to MLB. There is no such rivalry, not at least with this name. Win777 15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the word derby implies something other than a rivalry, this is begining to smack of hoax-terism. Hamster Sandwich 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Another fake name for a questionable rivalry.Gateman1997 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have never heard term on local TV nor seen it in the local papers in either city. Robert A West 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've been a pretty big baseball fan for about 10 years, and to the best of my knowledge, this rivalry has never been mentioned. --Idont Havaname 18:38, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary space

Appears to be a vanity page, along with Gary J Campbell Motor 15:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. - Chairboy 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — no evidence of notability. If not delete, then at least merge with Gary J Campbell page. :) — RJH 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cubs-Astros Pitching Derby

Delete. Nonexistant.

• I looked up the exact phrase "Cubs-Astros Pitching Derby" on Google and Dogpile. I only found its creation on Wikipedia and a Wikipedia "mirror." There is no such rivalry, not at least with this name. Win777 15:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The game where Kerry Wood tied the single-game strikeout record against Houston was awesome, but I'm a life-long Astros fan and I can't honestly say there's any real rivalry between Houston and the Cubbies, especially not under that particular name. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoaxter-ism. I'm gonna trust Mr. Rizo on this one. Hamster Sandwich 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Non existant rivalry.Gateman1997 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mmmbeer 21:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a significant rivalry. --Idont Havaname 18:36, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THIS MOURNING AFTER

Unsigned band that has yet to release an album. David | Talk 15:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Chairboy 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I don't see anything in the article asserting a nationwide tour, but if they really meet WP:MUSIC my vote is Keep. Friday 16:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep they meet #2 of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Can't seem to find the name of their label though. And my keep vote dosen't mean I enjoyed this article. Hamster Sandwich 17:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hamster Sandwich--touring nationwide thru England is legitimate grounds. Meelar (talk) 18:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and move to This Mourning After. Have completed a UK tour thus satisfying a WP:MUSIC criteria. Capitalistroadster 20:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A nationwide tour for a hardcore band in the UK with no recordings usually means getting in a van and playing a few opening sets at shows with 4 or 5 other bands (in front of an audience of perhaps 80 people), losing money the whole time. I'd also like to see evidence of such a tour, and if they played more than 4 or 5 gigs (which can be nationwide in England). -R. fiend 16:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at their website, I can basically confirm that their tour conists of playing about a dozen gigs in Eastern England (not too far of a drive from Ipswich) opening for a bunch of other bands who also are hardly notable. This is vanity. -R. fiend 16:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per R. fiend. 165.189.91.148 20:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Argh. Logged off before vote. This is Quale 20:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC).
• 'Delete per R. fiend. Doing a bunch of opening gigs within driving distance of your home does not a tour make. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:51, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impact youth theatre

Local youth theatre group - no more encyclopedic than any other local club. Delete. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 15:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:28, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Young M.A.R."

seems to a rapper without a record. Also the identical Young MAR. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. - Chairboy 15:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity. It appears the author was the subject of the article User:Youngmar973. If you take a look at the old version of that user's user page, you'll also see that he started to put the content there, and then decided to move it into the article namespace. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Greasy kid stuff. Theres no mention of this "artist" at the Roc-A-Fella website. The author even spelled the name of the label incorrectly. Hamster Sandwich 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. JamesBurns 09:28, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Rae Bose

Teen vanity, not notable. Tobycat 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of actual notability. Writing an essay doesn't quite qualify. Friday 16:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure shes a very nice person. Keep up the good work kid, come back when you're semi famous. Hamster Sandwich 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established, but good luck with your academic carreer and music.--Pharos 04:49, 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, page was moved. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Iran' or 'Persia'? Which One Should be Called?

• Keep Persia and Iran - I think you are all looking at the wrong end of the stick. They both describe different things. Iran was always used by the locals to refer to the land (hence the word LAND) of Persians (Parsi's), in similar fashion to United Kingdom being referred to as the land/kingdom of the British people. The people of Iran have always been known as Parsi's (english translation being Persian) since the nomadic roots. However, during the islamic conquest, the Arabs attempt to take out the letter P from the Persian alphabet resulted in most people referring to Parsi as Farsi. To sum everything, Iran is the name for the land of Persians/Aryans. In the same respect as the people of UK being referred to as British people, the People of Iran should be referred to as Persians. This is the only geographic and historically correct term. Infact, the term Iranian is incorrect in many ways although ignorantly being used. Some similar examples to help you grasp this fact, are Dutch people from the Netherland (You wouldn't call the Netherlandis or Hollandians), the British etc. --Sina7 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research. Dan100 (Talk) 16:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Really Useful and correct information which is of great importance for those who are confused by two names for the same country. In times when a political regime named "Islamic" is trying to delete the old and rich history of a nation from the memory of the international community and to replace it by a fundamentalistic feature, it is more important than ever to show that the terms "Iran" and "Persia" depict the same nation and to hint at the European origin of the term "Persia" for this country. See articles by Prof. Ehsan Yarshater and among others "Encyclopaedia Irannica".
• Comment - Not sure yet. My first impression is that this is useful information, but might be more appropriate for a talk page. If it could be a section of the Iran article, its plausible that it could become an article in its own right. Clearly the title would have to change to fit guidelines. -- Solipsist 16:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge persuaded by the condense into one paragraph and merge with Iran arguments, probably with a pointer from an appropriate Persia page too. -- Solipsist 08:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with better title. For comparison, see Derry/Londonderry name dispute. --Red King 16:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but change the unweildy title. (Perhaps, following the precedent of Derry/Londonderry name dispute as mentioned above, "Iran/Persia name dispute." It's useful information that doesn't necessarily have a place in the Iran article, but could certainly be linked from the "Terminology" section. -- MrBland 17:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this: Persian_or_Farsi? Slightly different IP but obviously the same author. Does that page deserve deletion as well? My view is that these are both articles of some use, although I am beginning to agree that the information contained therein may be better merged into Iran and Persian_language. -- MrBland 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That issue is completely different, and there is really no dispute that "Persian" is the proper and standard usage in the English language. The continued usage of "Farsi" by some in the West (including some Iranians) is primarily due to ignorance of this, rather than out of any political agenda. SouthernComfort 19:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • I listed Persian_or_Farsi? as a possible copyvio, on WP:CP#Suspected copyright infringements without online source. See my comments there. The current form of the articel is celarly derived from the version I listed. DES 19:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • At any rate, that article is redundant considering Persian language sufficiently explains the issue, and currently no articles link to it (just noticed a link in the main article), so it should probably be put up for deletion as well, taking these points into consideration. SouthernComfort 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Article is original research and severely POV. As a sidenote, the anon editor who started this article also has persistently attempted to include "Persia" as an official name in the Iran article, which of course it is not. SouthernComfort 17:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but change the title name Article is from a NPOV Point. User: 24.171.36.233 17:19 [5:19]/12:19 [CDT], 26 July, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (salvage what's useful and merge it into main Iran article). Otherwise rename, current title is horrible. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV and pointless as both names can apply similar to Siamese or Thai.Gateman1997 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Start over, this begins with a question! Also the point is moot. Persia refers to a historic area that encompassed both Iran and Iraq. The historic name has been superceeded by the current nomenclature, if the author would look at that high tech device known as a map, especially one produced in , oh, say the past 50 years. Hamster Sandwich 18:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well he has one point. Despite current political boundries many people who emigrated from the region prior to it becoming Iran refer to themselves as Persians and take offense to being called Iranian.Gateman1997 18:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This is false. Iraq (Mesopotamia) was never part of Persia - it was, however, at various times part of the Persian Empire. Iran has always been the native name, and Iranians have always called themselves such, so I think you would be hard pressed to find an Iranian who feels "Iranian" is offensive. The word "Persian" specifically refers to the Persian-speaking groups of Iran, who make up half the population. The other half is made up of non-Persian groups who have never referred to themselves as being Persian, but rather Iranian. The relevant articles explain these points sufficiently, and editors who lack knowledge of this subject are encouraged to learn the facts. SouthernComfort 18:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment so what you're saying is that Baghdad was never at any time the Persian capital, you're saying on one hand that Iraq was never part of Persia, yet at various times it was part of the Persian Empire. I just want to understand because, well your arguement seems a little fuzzified. I'm trying to be kind. And last time I looked on a map, Iran was Iran, and Iraq was Iraq, and most sentient people will back me up on this. The article begins by asking the reader a question. This in itself is not encyclopedic. It is asking for help, on a simple issue. Time to catch up with the modern (post 1950) world. Hamster Sandwich 20:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • My argument is not "fuzzified." Armenia was once part of the Persian Empire, but was it part of Persia? There is a difference between "Persia" (the core of the empire) and "Persian Empire." Historians apparently understand this difference. Iran is Iran, but was known in the West as Persia. Iraq is Iraq, and was known in the past as Mesopotamia. Most educated people would agree. SouthernComfort 20:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I can put you incontact with several Persian-Americans that would kick you if you called them Iranians or Iranian-Americans.Gateman1997 19:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Your hostile tone aside, you seem to not have understood my earlier response. "Persian" is an ethnic and linguistic term - it is not a nationality. The nationality is "Iranian." Those who call themselves Persian-American (as I do) do so because that is their ethnic background - Persian being the ethnicity, American being the nationality. This is too obvious to even require mention in this discussion. SouthernComfort 19:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Hostile tone? Where do you get that, I do know several Persians that loathe the term Iranian? And it is debateable whether it is a nationality or a ethnicity we are discussing here. I've not heard anyone in Iran refer to themselves ethnically as "Persian" in 50 years.Gateman1997 19:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
            • You could have said that they would "strongly disagree with me," but instead chose to say that they would "kick me." That you know several Iranians who loathe being called "Iranians" is original research. You haven't heard anyone in Iran refer to themselves as ethnically Persian in recent years? Don't insult my intelligence please. How do you think people differentiate each other? Iran is diverse - Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Bakhtiaris, Armenians, Assyrians, Arabs, Turkmen, etc etc. SouthernComfort 20:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
              • The point was that my phasing was not "hostile". You chose to make it such in your head. And now who's resorting to being condecending. As I said, they aren't "Iranian" they are "Persian". They left the region before Iran was established and as such choose to deny the nationality, that's not "orginal research" that's fact among some Persians. Also I stand by my statement that Iranians from the Iranian government (the highest authority in Iran) today have stated to the world that they are to be referred to as Iranian, not Persian.Gateman1997 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
                • You are free to your opinion, but they are not grounded in the facts, nor are they credible. I am an ethnic Persian myself, and have a very good understanding of these matters, and there are other Iranian editors here at WP that you may consult. Nonetheless, if you feel so strongly about your statements, then I suggest that you provide some relevant sources. SouthernComfort 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
                  • Comment We have to use neutral terminology and the agreed neutral term for the state on Wikipedia is the one registered with the UN. Hamster Sandwich 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The information seems relevant and valid. Anthony Appleyard 18:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title is bad, seems to be original research. Any useful information should be merged into either Iran or Persians. Mmmbeer 19:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve title Theodore W. Theodore W. 19:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge relevant info into Iran. See relevant parallel deletion debate at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Persian or Farsi? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/merge Worth a two-paragraph section under Iran. Robert A West 21:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename along the lines of [[Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan --Arcadian 21:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something more wiki-appropriate. Failing that, call both and reverse the charges. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename Horrible title, but like the Israel section, there are many sub-categories that are very useful. --Sean WI 04:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense into one paragraph and merge with Iran. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 09:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Move, and Cleanup, for obvious reasons Sean Black 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense into one paragraph and merge with Iran. Dmn / Դմն 01:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and cleanup. Uvaduck 13:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with the main article on Iran. Basic premise is true and easily verified, but not worth a separate article - whole thing is basically trivia. Xaa 20:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Sweet mother of pearl, at the very least Rename it. Merits of the content aside, the name is terribly unwieldy and unlikely to be typed in the search field. - Chairboy 22:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Iran/Persia naming controversy or something to that extent; see my comment on its talk page. --Wikiacc (talk) 13:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename (as above) -- The Time Killer
• Keep and rename Mr. Know-It-All 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• This article should be renamed e.g. Iran and Persia (names) Olthule 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per MrBland. POV can be easily fixed, no? Punkmorten 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge as appropriate with Iran and Persian Empire. It's POV anyway. JDoorjam 19:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article is false and POV. 6 August 2005 (UTC)

arctic-avenger (Talk) Iran is the proper name for the country, it comes from the Avestan name Aryavarta in the meaning of: "Homeland of the Aryans". This article is written in first-person. article should be deleted and any relevant info should be merged. 07:21, 5 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 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political religion

The article is original research and a newly coined term. Any article on whether this or that ideology or system of government has traits in common with a religion is also hopelessly POV. Whatever content can be salvaged from Political religion (and there isn't much) should just be added to the article on Totalitarianism. Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI: "political religion" gets 307 hits on Google Scholar, and is in an academic journal title (Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions). The term refers essentially to secular ideologies which are dogmatic enough and successful enough to have a cultural and political power equivalent to a religion, as well as sharing memetic qualities with religion, such a degree of utopianism and the aim of transforming society. Quintessential examples are Marxism and Nazism, but totalitarianism is not a requirement (eg neo-liberalism can be analysed as a political religion). I would urge all those who voted to delete on grounds of neologism or original research to reconsider. Rd232 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd wager that the presence of the term in that academic journal is more of a coincidence than anything else. "Political religion" is not an established term in political science or anywhere else. Furthermore, it carries an inherent POV (the association of some ideologies with religion), which obstructs good discussion of the real issue at hand: the dogmatism of those ideologies. "Political religion" assumes that (1) being dogmatic means being religious, and (2) dogmatism is the KEY element of all religions, while other things - like, I don't know, belief in a deity and an afterlife - are just unimportant details. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence, and the rest is your interpretation. The fundamental analogy with the cultish aspects of religion by using the term is perfectly valid, I think - there's no need to get hung up on the spiritual element - that's what the political qualifier distinguishes. Rd232 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vs civil religion: although some scholars use the terms as equivalent, others see a useful distinction, using "civil religion" as something much weaker, which functions much more as a socially unifying and essentially conservative force, where a political religion is radically transformational. Rd232 17:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vs theocracy: nothing to do with it. There need not be any conventionally religious or spiritual element at all - eg (atheist) Marxism. Rd232 17:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of the whole point. Calling something with no conventionally religious or spiritual element at all a "religion" is inherently POV at best and utterly absurd at worst. If spirituality isn't necessary for a religion, then what is necessary? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a sociological term. Ergo what is of interest are the sociological aspects of religion, and it is these which the analogy implicit in the term is drawing on. Rd232 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems a perfectly acceptable article to me... Dan100 (Talk) 17:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Change to keep This is an article that has some encyclopedic points, but for me to make a definative Delete vote, I'd have to research the topic in depth, and compare it to what has been presented. As the article is in some sections incomplete, perhaps this is more of a work in progress type thing. The section on Japan initially swayed me to vote for deletion, but the more I considered it, the more it seemed to fit with the thesis. Certainly in recent history certain political movements have sought to ally themselves with an existing religion, or to create a religion to suit their purpose (ie Nazism), An interesting topic, it probably just needs some fleshing out. Hamster Sandwich 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Much of the information itself may be correct and encyclopedic, but placing it all together and writing an article on Political religion is original research and inherently POV - not a proper way of presenting that information. Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a useful article, treating what appears to be a newly recoined term (possible ideologically inspired) as if it was an established political concept. I can't see much of a future for it, not without further sources at least. A google search doesn't seem to support the idea that this is an established term with a defined usage. In fact there seem to be a number of usages, and the one portrayed in this article seems to be a rather politically loaded one to me.Palmiro 19:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism or redirect to State sponsored religion. The article looks like it has useful information, or could. Mmmbeer 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • comment this could also be related to theocracy.
• Weak keep. I'm not comfortable with the neologism, but the subject matter genuinely exists. I could be persuaded to change my vote to delete if someone could show me an already-existing term that covers the same territory. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems to be the same thing as civil religion, except not as good. Merge if necessary. Agentsoo 22:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've found this article problemmatic for a long time, as it seems to have originally been written as a pro-christian/anti-communist polemic, and since then it has evolved into original research. On that basis I have to vote to delete.--Gene_poole 02:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for cleanup. Rd232 09:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it is a very good reason for deletion, for the simple reason that original research has no place in Wikipedia, and the related subjects which are not original research are already represented by well-written articles. --Gene_poole 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I repeat, that's not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for cleanup. If it's a valid concept - and it is (please see article, I've changed it a bit) then if necessary make it a stub, but don't delete, which causes potential aggravation if somebody comes along wanting to improve it and then is told it was vfd'd and needs to go through an undeletion process to be allowed to do that. NB The modern sociological concept goes back to 1938, when Eric Voegelin published a book with that title. Not what you'd call a neologism. Rd232 05:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
        • And I repeat, original research does not belong in Wikipedia. Given that everything from the name of the article down is original research, the only possible way to "clean up" this article is to delete it. --Gene_poole 06:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there is an old VfD from a year ago here that might not have been properly conducted, looking at the page history... Sirmob 03:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - it is origional research, and I worry that the way it is presented here is inherently PoV in some sense. The topic is more means of governmental oppression than "Political Religion..." Sirmob 03:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 09:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. The non-POV content can be added to Civil religion and/or Cult of personality. Mapple 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up and finish writing the article so that it looks less like original research. The subject matter certainly exists. (Though I'd also like it to discuss how a lot of churches have gotten overly involved with politics.) --Idont Havaname 18:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it needs a lot of work but it clearly exists as an academic concept (see FYI at top), and a useful one at that. The current article is useless, but that's a different issue. Idont Havaname - your bracketed request would fall under a completely different article (eg religion and politics). Rd232 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - given that self-confessed neologism Proactionary Principle recently survived VfD, it would be a bit laughable if this real concept didn't. Rd232 17:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Even so, the article is original research and quite worthless in its current state. Besides, if you're going to make the argument that "if one neologism survived VfD, all of them should", then you'd better start lobbying for a change in WP policy... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh come on Mihnea, I've made it perfectly clear that I don't think Political religion is a neologism. I just meant that if the thresholds for vfd are so high that the other article can survive, this is easily old enough and established enough to do so. It is a real and useful concept. Rd232 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The political religion article is distinct enough from cult of personality that it stands on its own; the two concepts seem to me to be fairly synonymous. Not sure whether a better title and place is needed; it should be clear to linkers that this article has to do with totalitarian systems. Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I would ask Mihnea to withdraw the request, as the article has now substantially improved. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CitizenJoe

Spammy puff vanity type thing. Dan100 (Talk) 17:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, fake, etc. --Wikiacc (talk) 17:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Strikeout by me, due to a change of mind.) --Wikiacc (talk) 17:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Copyvio, as per my notice on article and listing on WP:CP. (WP:GVFD indicates that I should note that here as well as those places.) --Wikiacc (talk) 17:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 09:31, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Browncastle

A small internet forum designed for use by a group of high school students. Joyous (talk) 17:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Forum-cruft. Hamster Sandwich 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn forum. JamesBurns 09:32, 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.

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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VoicePulse

Reads Like An AD again IMac4ME 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, mostly ad content, no indication of meeting WP:CORP evident from the article. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I am reluctant to move for deletion with this many ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article was one big advertisement for the company with at least some of the stuff copied from their web site. I've editted teh article down to a stub with teh remoal of the advertising text, but agree with Ultimus that they look notable. -- Whpq 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite and expand without the marketing mixed in. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite — plenty of ghits, but needs expanding Martinp23 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Reading like an ad means an article needs a rewrite, not a nuclear bomb. --Daniel Olsen 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Michael David Miller

Repeats verbatium most of the text from Golan Cipel article, adds almost nothing. A simple google search for his son, and his son's band yeilds almost nothing. methelfilms 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to appropriate article. Merge what little extra info there is. Agentsoo 22:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 09:33, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eliseus R Santos

Completely non verifiable. May be a hoax. Found on new page patrol. After wikifing this I checked some of the stuff out hoping for more info. There is exactly 1 google hit on the name, and that seems to be for another person, a member of the Institute of Management Accountants. There are no google hits for the books cited, and Amazon doesn't list either. There is a Golden Marble Award, but it isn't for books and no "Santos" is listed among the winnners. There are more "Quill Awards", "Golden Quill Awards", "Silver Quill Awards" and the like than I can shake a pen at, none of those I found seem to be for printed fiction, and none list a "Santos" among their winners. Delete. DES 19:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete flotsam — RJH 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I tried Amazon.com for the books, and search for the classified inventions turned up nothing. Nothing on google either. Mmmbeer 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. Unverified. --Etacar11 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:33, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Cole

Delete. NN Vanity A curate's egg 19:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. The artist is notable but I have concerns that this article may be a copyvio based upon the original contributor's history. Hall Monitor 19:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but should be rewritten and reformatted. The performer is notable enough. 23skidoo 19:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep. Needs a neutral rewrite. — RJH 20:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but send to cleanup. Member of notable group. Capitalistroadster 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with possible smackdown for nomination. I'm losing the faith.Nandesuka 10:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment looks suspiciously like a copyvio from somewhere. See also Rhona Bennett nomination below. JamesBurns 09:48, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhona Bennett

Delete. NN. Vanity. Poorly written not encyclopaedic A curate's egg 19:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but with reservations. The artist is notable but I have concerns that this article may be a copyvio based upon the original contributors history. Hall Monitor 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as possible copyvio. Not sure about the first section but it appears to be a cut-and-paste from somewhere. The last section is definitely a copyright violation of an article written by Paul Clifford at AMG, see [8]. JamesBurns 09:44, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless network technologies

Poorly written orphan stub. Jake 19:20, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 19:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Wireless lan. Mmmbeer 20:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Ellis

Delete. NN Vanity A curate's egg 19:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable musician, member of En Vogue. Hall Monitor 19:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sigh. 23skidoo 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub on notable muisician. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable musician of music group that achieved heavy rotation on MTV. Nandesuka 01:09, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Jannette

Non-notable, vanity. jredmond 19:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually he is quite known in Virgnia, he is publishing a book.

If he were "quite known", then there would be more than one listing for him on Google. - jredmond 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the page consists of lengthy "excerpts". Could be considered a copyvio. — RJH 20:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A 19 year old "21st Century Essayist and Philosopher"? NN Vanity. --Icelight 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear vanity. Agentsoo 22:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This should have been a speedy deletion, the anon user has also edited the 1986 page were the user changed the March section 3 times. The user added this - "March 3 - 21st Century Philosopher Christopher Jannette born." In conclusion, this is a total and complete vanity page. --Mjvan12 02:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:52, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CDPoker

It's an ad. Rhobite 19:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable even if re-written not to be an ad. DES 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Agentsoo 22:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I tried to clean it up to npov and make it less commercial, but you're entirely right. jglc | t | c 04:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:53, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Robinson

NN Possible vanity A curate's egg 19:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. How is this article possibly vanity? Hall Monitor 19:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is notable (member of a successful singing group), though this stub could stand a lot of expansion. - jredmond 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — notable. — RJH 20:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator seems to have something against En Vogue. 23skidoo 20:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable musician who had a solo single "Envious" in the lower reaches of the r&b charts in 2001. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• PS. She was also a member of Lucy Pearl which had a top 5 r&b album and top 30 album on the Billboard album charts in 2000 see [9] Capitalistroadster 00:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable musician. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Herron

NN Vanity A curate's egg 19:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and do not merge. Notable actress and musician. This is in no way non-notable or vanity and it is becoming difficult to assume good WP:FAITH at this point. Hall Monitor 19:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — notable, and a seemingly daft nomination for VfD. :) — RJH 19:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per RJH 23skidoo 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per other former members of En Vogue. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep absolutely. Brookie is never gonna get it. Nandesuka 01:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable actress. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiller's Rule

A minor in-joke on Slashdot. Joyous (talk) 19:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Slashdot if it's a notable enough joke, otherwise Delete. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sufficiently minor that I've never encountered it in several years of Slashdot, which I think makes it nn. Agentsoo 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I've read /. since last millenium and I've never noticed Tiller's Rule. Is it because I don't read comments rated "minus-one"? Having read the full article, I still don't find a reason to dispute the "importance" tag. I didn't post a "Barno's Theory" article here, and that started in Wikipedia's VfD. ("Barno's Theory is that any sound or unsound idea can be portrayed as a pyramid shape.") Barno 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if everything claimed in the article were true, utterly non-notable. Quale 02:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn joke. JamesBurns 09:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and badly expressed.--Maustrauser 10:01, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maxine Jones

NN Possible vanity A curate's egg 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand or merge and redirect to En Vogue. Lets not get carried away here. Hall Monitor 19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is getting silly. 23skidoo 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Obvious fan article, but some useful info here I suppose. Agentsoo 22:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 64 (BCC)

'WP:NOT a Birminghham bus time-table' - if that isn't policy it should be --Doc (?) 19:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete Non-notable, and on philosophical grounds. Its usefulness is questionable. And this route is singled out for what reason? Mmmbeer 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps a policy revision is in order! Agentsoo 22:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but no need for more policy; we've deleted articles about individual bus routes before, and we'll do it again. CDC (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I could make a case for really notable bus routes (but I can't think what the criteria would be) but this isn't it. If nothing else nobody would keep the Birmingham bus wiki updated. Secretlondon 12:50, 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 merge and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Gun (Stargate)

• Delete-All rail guns are basically the same- this will never make it past a stub.--Zxcvbnm 19:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and add an entry at the bottom of Rail gun. Mmmbeer 20:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the very small amount of info here. Perhaps redirect to rail gun to avoid recreation. Agentsoo 22:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Gateman1997 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis or Rail Gun.Karmafist 05:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Stargate SG-1. JamesBurns 09:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• The proper destination for a merge/redirect would be Technology in the Stargate universe. Where it already has a blurb, so there's not much to merge. It's a rail gun. That you can put on a space ship. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In light of this I'm changing my vote to deleteGateman1997 21:11, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 61/62/63 (TWM), 48/49 (TWM), 45/47 (TWM), 11A/11C (TWM), 146 (FWY)

• More Birmingham buscruft nn --Doc (?) 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note sure what the convention is for things like this, but they surely don't need an article each. It would be nice to merge but I've no idea where to. Agentsoo 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe to a Birmingham Bus Routes, English Bus Routes or similar? --ßjweþþ (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone has created Category:Bus Routes in Birmingham, England. I suppose this could become an article - and the individual routes merged. But, I don't think the details of where a local bus travels are encyclopedic anyway, so I'd sooner delete the lot. --Doc (?) 13:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess you're right. How about a bus timetable Wikibook? That might work. --βjweþþ (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ooo! Oooo! Can I post my local bus schedules for my home town on an internationally-read encyclopedia, too?! Huh? Can I? Huh? Oh. I can't? It's like posting my street address? Okay, then I vote delete for all of 'em. =) Xaa 21:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can see that some bus routes somewhere would merit an encyclopedia article but I'm not convinced that every bus route in Birmingham qualifies. I can't see that these would be kept up-to-date and therefore would quickly become useless. Secretlondon 13:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Listfy Although they aren't necessarily encyclopedic, but a quick search shows theres some precendent for it (Key MBTA bus routes, List of Melbourne bus routes, List of MBTA bus routes), to list a few, and the information maybe useful for some purposes. ∞Who?¿? 11:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete buscruft that's not interesting. -Splash 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthianism

An article on a supposed political ideology so popular it gets 0 Google hits, written by a known troll (or group of trolls, who knows) --Jamieli 20:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Now all they need is a manifesto! Agentsoo 22:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tim Ivorson 19:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete parody ideology.--Pharos 04:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP So all of a sudden some lame POOR BROKE ASS communist bitchez get envious of a RICH FLOSSIN BALLER like White Dawg and others and they wanna delete a page about their political philosophies to prevent it from spreading? FUCK THAT. This shiz is KRUNK TO THE FUCKIN MAX. Keep. -BrowardBillionaire 04:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Krunk indeed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:00, 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 Delete. Essjay · Talk 20:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persian or Farsi?

Bad title, written as original/opinion article; topic already covered at Persian language, relevant info can be merged there. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/'Iran' or 'Persia'? Which One Should be Called?. Note: the article has also been noted as a possible copyvio, but the source cannot be substantiated. See [10]. In either case, I think this article should be deleted and any relevant info should be merged. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As POV reportage."In English, our language has always been known as “Persian”. " Well question answered! It is the english wikipedia. Thanks for solving the mystery! Have a nice day! Hamster Sandwich 20:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SouthernComfort 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is bad and its written in "first person." Mmmbeer 20:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm the person who noted the probable copyvio -- i was hoping someone else could substantiate. DES 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense into one paragraph and merge with Persian language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 09:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Persian language. --Wikiacc (talk) 13:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete it , please . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.0.231 (talk • contribs) , who also deleted several votes (see edit history for 15:05, 29 July 2005) --Alan Au 09:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE POV essay. ~~~~ 07:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Soapbox. Duplicates Persian Language#Nomenclature so there is no need to merge. Robert A West 21:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, Wikify, Consider a new title, but Keep. Informative & useful - and Wikipedia is not paper. --Jpbrenna 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Persian language and Talk:Persian language --Spudtater 13:26, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pardism

There are now five Google hits for this (most seem to be misspellings of paradigm), not much of an edit history, and a contributor who seems to be adding nonsense to WP. The article looks like nonsense, and if nobody can verify this, it probably is nonsense. Gareth Hughes 20:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete. I can find nothing that isn't a typo of paradigm. Even the one book that looked like it might have been real[11] is also a typo [12]. Mmmbeer 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fictitious or at best nn. Agentsoo 22:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--DNicholls 22:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete what Agentsoo said. --Etacar11 00:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn belief. JamesBurns 09:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete, unnotable or hoax, pending evidence to the contrary. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Juaopilig'

Looks like more Pardism nonsense. Gareth Hughes 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete as there's not even typos to help this one, per above. Mmmbeer
• Delete. Jibberish. Agentsoo 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--DNicholls 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 09:58, 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 KEEP. -Splash 00:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Alinei

Delete this biography of a nonnotable professor whose only claim to fame is a theory no one paid attention to. The page is probably vanity or student vanity as it links to several of his papers. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep the professor is now linked in at least two posts Thracian language and Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory, of course, they're both by the same anon. user[13]. Mmmbeer 21:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think. Clearly this article needs work but surely being president of Atlas Linguarum Europae (620 google results) suggests notability alone. One for Cleanup. Agentsoo 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Moffat

Probable autobiographical article on an artist who shows no evidence of being notable. And surprise, they've got a manifesto. This time, the Neo-Gothic Art movement might have some substance, but I don't think it is defined by this artist. Overall, A true artist goes through years and years of self-doubt, tonnes of work with little payoff; In this case, I suspect a few more years of obscurity are required before an article is warranted. Solipsist 21:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, regretably. Moderately interesting article but ultimately self-aggrandizing. NN. Agentsoo 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I got here after following an anonymous editor placing info that Charles Moffat was allegedly an expert on Lilith mythology on a disambig page and then tons of completely incorrect information about the character added to mythology articles by the same anon user. I looked at contributions and, suprise, same person creates an article claiming that Charles Moffat is an expert on that and being an influential artist, and further made several edits to articles related to his supposed expertise. A Google search for this individual, narrowed to the include the term "artist" because many people have thebase name, shows only 750 links, many of which are sites where people can create their own links so presumably were hit by the person in question just like Wikipedia does. I see no independent links indicating that others find his work influential or that he is an expert in any of the areas he claims to be, and further his website [14] shows what appears to be extremely amateurish work.

I would further recommend an admin rollback his edits, as his changes are extensive and self-promotional in nature. DreamGuy 22:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The edits this anonymous editor made to Lilith are now being restored by an editor claiming that links to Charles Moffat's website counts as reputable sources for the additions the anonymous user (who we suspect of being Moffat himself) made to the article. I would appreciate it if someone here who understands that a person's claims to be an expert and supporting that claim by linking to one's own website is a violation of the policies here on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability so we can undo the damage this person caused. DreamGuy 01:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity that's had far too much time spent on it. Flowerparty ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rolley backpack

It's a pretty amusing faux-sociological/psychological study of those who use wheeled backpacks, but sadly, it's not an encyclopedia article. Joyous (talk) 21:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Ho ho. Delete Leithp 21:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Got NOR? --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically an "adjective." Perhaps redirect to backpack. The content is useless and/or POV. Mmmbeer 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to backpack, and note the existence of these items there, but the sociological musings are pure BS and must go. Meelar (talk) 21:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN in my opinion. Agentsoo 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. Delete. Don't forget to hit the images, too. —Cryptic (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just plain silly. --Etacar11 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research that's actually "research"... humblefool® 02:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not funny enough for BJAODN. JamesBurns 10:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's just too subtle for you guys... But you have to admit this bit of vandalism is definitely BJAODN-worthy (btw, I am in love with Rolley Backpack Girl). --Dmcdevit·t 20:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Götaland theory

I do not think that this article belongs in Wikipedia. Firstly, it treats a theory which is ridiculed by scholars and has no proponents at universities. Secondly, there is no way to treat this article that resembles NPOV, but any serious treatment will sound like it is cutting the theory to pieces Wiglaf 21:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Then rip it to pieces in the article, but keep the article. --Scimitar ^parley 21:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep we have other things like Creationism and Intelligent Design that sound a lot like what you describe. Mmmbeer 21:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and please rip to shreds! We can't ignore things purely because they are idiotic. Agentsoo 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article seems to make it clear that this theory has little credibility, so I see no reason to delete it. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rip to shreds with verifiable citations and with NPOV. Barno 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Some references would be good. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, that it's absurd, disputed and laughed at doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. Ashmodai 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Improve by explaining, to the non-Gotalanders among us, why the exact location of these places is of universal importance, please --Simon Cursitor 09:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're familiar with Beowulf, you may have heard of the Geats as a tribe in southern Sweden which were conquered by the Swedes and disappeared from history. Well, they did not disappear from Scandinavian history, and today a small number of modern Geats have created this revisionist theory according to which the Swedes were also Geats, so the Geats were not conquered by the Swedes. It is a strange logic, but they try to make it sound reasonable by placing the ancient locations of the Swedish heartland in the core province of the Geats.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this explanation. Having now read (below) your correspondence with User:Elisson, I am convinced that this is a subject which needs to be kept on Wikipaedia, so that those who *don't* know the intimate Geatish background can find out that there is a dispute and what it is about. Accordingly I am now voting to keep, expand, clean-up and generally improve. --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Appears to be a notable crank theory. JamesBurns 10:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is only notable in Sweden.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and add counterarguments - Skysmith 10:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I share Wiglaf's concern. The academic consensus is indeed totally against this theory (or rather, fantasy). But provided the article is indeed allowed to introduce the massive and conclusive evidence against the theory, which will indeed rip it to pieces, I guess I won't oppose keeping. / Alarm 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable theories, no matter how stupid they are (like Flat Earth Society), should have articles. -- Elisson • Talk 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unlikely theories if they're notable (as this one certainly seems to be).--Pharos 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Everyone is assumming its notable because so much is written in the article. Can anyone link me to any non wikipedia or wikipedia mirror sources that verify this contraversy? Also, to editors of this article: remember that a big NPOV trap is that minor crackpot theories can't just be countered by an obvious counter argument unless you can find and cite that argument being used (otherwise its original research which is verboten). Too often editors just write counter arguments to create balance but create original research in the process. (68.127.166.133)
  • Yes, I totally agree.--Wiglaf 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I don't assume it's notable because the size of the article (how would you know what I am assuming?). I think it's notable because I've heard and read about it in a lot of different medias during a long time. Take for example Jan Guillou's books about Arn, or Dag Stålsjö's book and tv-series, or any of all foras where the question is dicussed. -- Elisson • Talk 12:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Jan Guillou's work of historical fiction concerns a much later time period (the 12th century and the 13th century) when it is uncontested that some Geatish families played an important part. Concerning Dag Stålsjö his TV-show was shown once in the 70s. It was ridiculed, rejected and has not been shown since.--Wiglaf 13:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Jan Guillou still touches the subject, even if the series doesn't cover the correct period. You said everyone was assuming the article is notable because it is long. I proved you wrong. You wanted sources that verified the controversy. I gave you Dag Stålsjö (doesn't matter that he was ridiculed, he is a proof that the theory is and was alive). Need I say more? You may also note that there are 12 keep votes and no oppose, except for your strange nomination. -- Elisson • Talk 21:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess we have a believer in the Götaland theory at Wikipedia, and that I have stepped on your toes! I know Jan Guillou personally, and I think he would be insulted by being associated with this fantasy. Note that the fact that this belief is notable in Västergötland, where you live, does not make it notable on the level fitting for Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 21:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • No, you insult me by saying that I am a believer of the Götaland theory. It is your ignorance I dislike. And you are an admin? What the... What is happening with Wikipedia? I don't care if you know Guillou, his books have been interpreted by many as supporting the theory, no matter what Guillou personally thinks about it. The theory is not only known in Västergötland, which you should know, but in the whole of Sweden. Notable or not in your opinion doesn't make a difference, we have 12 keep votes and no delete votes. You might be able to figure something out of that. As User:JIP on a page far away from this once said: "Have you ever considered that the reason why everyone says you are wrong might be that you are wrong?" -- Elisson • Talk 11:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, I am an admin due to my concerns for the quality of Wikipedia, as I am now. Perhaps, you have noticed that the keep votes stopped after 68.127.166.133's post. The previous nominators assumed that it was notable due to the article's length, and the length was due to a User:Wilmer T, an original researcher who is usually cut to pieces every time he appears on a discussion site, such as Skalman. Sorry, but I still think that Wikipedia would be better off without it. When I saw the great editor User:Jallan be influenced by this article, I realized that it does more damage than good.--Wiglaf 13:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • As a non-admin, I'd prefer admins of Wikipedia to be more humble than you are. Assuming a lot of things about other wikipedians is not humble. All votes stopped after 68.127.166.133's post. I still see no delete votes. I don't care how ridiculous the theory is, and how cut to pieces User:Wilmer T is on Skalman. There are articles on subjects even more ridiculous. Why would Wikipedia be better off without it? Wikipedia is not a place for "the truth", Wikipedia is a place for articles about truths and lies and ridiculous theories, as long as they are notable. Götaland theory is notable. I am going away tomorrow (see notice at my user page), so don't expect any answer from me in a while. -- Elisson • Talk 15:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                • That is unfair! I could have removed most of the content as original research and as unreferenced long ago. As for its notability, I guess it is different for someone who lives in Götaland, but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia.-Wiglaf 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • What is unfair? That people tend to not agree with you in this particular question? I don't see any original research in the article. You may want to read what the policy says. Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The Götaland theory; 1. is not a theory created by editors of Wikipedia; 2. has been published elsewhere (Dag Stålsjö's TV-series, for example). I agree about the sources, though. But that is not a reason to delete the article. As for its notability, then why have Brits, Americans, Australians and Germans voted keep? And don't keep on repeating the "long article" argument... -- Elisson • Talk 16:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                    • It is unfair that you call me arrogant, since I have allowed the information to stay so far. Since Wilmer T did not provide any references, I would consider most to be his own original research. Even if there were references we would have to weed out self-published material and authors resorting to spiritism and faked quotes. Note that I am entitled to ask the Wikipedia community about whether the article should stay.--Wiglaf 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Notable crackpot theory. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, 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 redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell & Pusateri

Merge to Don Sherwood. This is NN as a standalone article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn firm. JamesBurns 10:02, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Village of St. Anthony (dormitories), St. Bonaventure University

Write-up by an estate agent (is that realtor in American?) for some non-notable residences in a University in an unidentified city. -- RHaworth 21:45:16, 2005-07-26 (UTC)

• Delete nothing but an advertisement. DES 21:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Read the article and still no idea what it's about! Delete clearly. Agentsoo 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It appears to be about some desirable student accommodation in St. Bonaventure University. Uncle G 01:48:21, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 01:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dorms without significant history are not notable. --Idont Havaname 18:36, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effection

This movie is non-notable, if it even exists. Searching for "Effection 'Tom Cruise' Thome" on Google receives no hits, not on IMDB James 21:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as for Julian Thome (see below). Agentsoo 21:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--DNicholls 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. Just in his head? --Etacar11 01:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Affected?--DNicholls 04:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense Usrnme h8er 11:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense - nonexistent movie. --Idont Havaname 18:27, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funereal moon

fancruft of nn band. also, HORRIBLE ON THE EYES AND BRAIN. Delete-DNicholls 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• nn and possibly copyvio; delete. Agentsoo 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. AND STOP THE SHOUTING!! --Etacar11 01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article written in ALL CAPS is a sign of non-encyclopedicity and/or non-notability. — JIP | Talk 05:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 10:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Thome

Non notable, if real at all. Not in IMDB and neither are any of the movies listed. James 21:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Either a joke or nn. Delete either way. Agentsoo 21:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--DNicholls 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just in this kid's imagination, I would assume. --Etacar11 01:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. JamesBurns 10:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete constantly removes VfD tags and ignores discussion. Usrnme h8er 11:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Imaginary vanity. Ashmodai 13:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. --DrTorstenHenning 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, and only give it 5 days on here please. Speedy delete as patent nonsense (now that I've seen Effection). He's saying that he's appeared in nonexistent films. --Idont Havaname 18:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this and all related non-entries. - Lucky 6.9 04:27, 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 REDIRECT. -Splash 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of Nih

Non-notable band, does not appear to pass any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. DES 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect per JYolkowski.--DNicholls 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Knights who say Ni. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Knights who say Ni. JamesBurns 10:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Knights who say Ni. --Idont Havaname 18:24, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 02:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathak Kraven

Article is just glorifying some random user from a gaming forum. Also, there was an ad hominem insult questioning that forumite's sexual orientation, but I quickly decided against leaving that, and deleted that and the original article out. You may read the history to see what the article originally contained in the history. 172.194.24.182 18:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete While I support the deletion of this article, it should be noted that the same anon IP address that created this vfd is the same (with only three edits) that vandalized the page. (One to vandalize, one to create the vfd, and one to write the vfd comment.) --Icelight 06:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all history versions qualify one way or another. I have added {{db}}. DES 22:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deletable. Denni☯ 02:14, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Voodoo

Band vanity —PrologFan {Talk} 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Teenage girl band vanity. More power to 'em for starting a band, but nowhere near encyclopedic yet. 26 Google hits for "Divine Voodoo" + band, of which only one is even remotely relevant; a passing mention in the bio blurb about one of the members on a website about "Youth Action Now" [15] which appears to be some sort of "increasing multiculturalism in Saskatchewan" project. And no, the young lady's involvement in this project does not confer notability on her, either, so don't go writing any articles about her. Soundguy99 15:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mbuyapey

Finishing this old nomination. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 22:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE - It's a useless page, telling nothing new - you can only link to it from a page that says that it is a district in Paraguari, which is a department of Paraguay - 209.30.148.224 01:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Districts in Paraguay are as notable as districts in any other country. -- Visviva 22:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Administrative districts are encyclopedic. Ben-w 23:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Administrative districts are notable whereever they are. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] European affairs

This page makes no sense if we don't even have an entry for Nation States. Once we have "Nation States", consider explaining "European affairs" within that page. Austrian 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn, ad.--DNicholls 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deletion carried out by mikka. android79 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 31999998

That's right. A number. A nn number at that. No redeemable article here. -DNicholls 22:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Crush by huge number Really! DES 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shanes 23:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A uniquely encyclopedic subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.6 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-26 23:28:02 UTC who was the author of the article being considered for deletion
• Delete. 319999998 sux0rs, 319999999 r0x0rs! But they're both non-notable. Nandesuka 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ken 02:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• This article was a member of the deleted

List_of_number_greater_than_or_equal_to_the_number_of_search_results_they_produce_on_Google. Let's not allow it to spread to enough WP-mirrors to violate that criterion. Delete 319999999 times. Barno 01:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Trovatore 03:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless Cyclone49 04:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless article. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and post this talk page to BJAODN. ;-) Xaa 20:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. mikka (t) 21:07, 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 12:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frederica Santos

Non-notable bio article. I think this should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD A7, but my addition of {{nn-bio}} has twice been removed, and I'm not about to approaceh the 3RR over this. See Talk:Frederica Santos for my arguments on uses of A7 here. Speedy delete or Delete. DES 22:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a speedy, but delete unless references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See also Eliseus R Santos and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eliseus R Santos. DES 22:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity at best. --Etacar11 01:19, 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 merge and redirect to Memetics -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MemeBot, Memeoid, memotype, and meme-complex

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Memethics

A collection of neologisms that are dicdefs at best if notable. The first two were created by the same anon. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 22:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Neologisms that are referred by other articles should probably be clarified/defined on their own pages. Some references as to the origin of the word memebot should probably be cited. (by 64.81.133.205, who didn't sign)
• Merge all into memetics. —PrologFan {Talk} 00:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all into Memetics. Thanks for the meme-ories. JamesBurns 10:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps we should create wiktionary entries and crosslink for neologisms that don't have extensive etymologies? Anonymous 01 Aug 2005 (EST)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (had already been done) and ROFL. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of numbers ordered by Google rating

Not encyclopedic. Delete. Ken 23:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete --DNicholls 23:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also: the redirect List of numbers ordered by google rating--DNicholls 23:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless list - it will change tomorrow anyway --Doc (?) 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete oh lordy... -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• This article is encyclopedic and gives valuable and interesting information. The google sequence of numbers is of technological and sociological significance. It is of interest to people wanting to research internet search engines, their mechanisms and their effects. It also gives a unique time-sensitive insight into the historical evolutionary development of Google's visible mechanics, and will be an important reference in years to come. Keep.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.6 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 July 2005
• I'd like to Speedy delete it, but, ok, I'll wait a bit. I have allready speedied some of this guys "artcles" and redirects (for instance a redirect from an article with the name being about the first 200 digits of pi...). Shanes 23:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Pointless, results are likely to change anytime and the complete list is infinite. This is wikipedia, not the church of Google worshippers. Fbergo 23:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete! -- Joolz 00:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the non-anonymous voters so far. Barno 01:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kinser 02:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why in the world...? humblefool® 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Trovatore 03:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete some of the weirdest shit I've seen in a long time... Cyclone49 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless article. — JIP | Talk 05:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since 42 is missing. Samohyl Jan 10:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ashmodai 12:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. linas 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• De-Google before our mirrors get it all over Google. --Idont Havaname 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Publish original research elsewhere. Dystopos 19:19, 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 12:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orionwisdom

I would say new-age mumbojumbo, but someone will object - so I'll go for nn --Doc (?) 23:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'll go with nn. --Etacar11 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I don't object. Stop being hypersensitive. Mumbo-jumbo, balderdash, gobbledygook, gibberish, patent nonsense. Delete -EDM 05:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know that the factual nature of religious beliefs should really be called in question. However this is clearly a stub article. I'm aware that the Orion material and its author has been active for over twenty years now. I know they have a book published and still have semi-regular workshops in Washington DC. The article as it stands is woefully underinformative and does not read like an encyclopedia entry, but I don't think that's grounds for deletion. Alkzndr 12:42, 27 july, 2005

  Well, of course the factual nature of religious beliefs should be called into question - that's called intellectual inquiry. But I wasn't supporting deletion of this article because I thought the belief was untrue (I do think that, but that is irrelevant); I supported deletion because the article is both content-free and unintelligible. Maybe the article could be rewritten and expanded, by someone with knowledge of the, um, belief system, to include encyclopedic material - though having looked at the website I'd have to characterize that as content-free as well. But more fundamentally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to assemble information from multiple sources and to synthesize it into an article that provides more information than the reader could obtain from any single source. Does any information exist about Orionwisdom besides that website, such that any content in the article other than an external link to the website wouldn't be superfluous? -EDM 17:40, 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, but by User:Mikkalai, not by me. -Splash 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of numbers that are not primes

• delete this crap --24.158.179.87 22:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Enclyclopedic list. Annonymous contributor 22:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (actually 62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 22:35:51 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
• Delete - by definition, there are an infinite number of these. Keeping such a list has no practical value, it's just silliness. -Satori 22:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By definition there are an infinite number of prime numbers, but there is a List of prime numbers. Deleting this article but keeping that one would be plain inconsistent. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:12:38 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
    • Not really. Prime numbers have a certain notable property. Non-primes have the reverse of that, a non-notable property. So...we won't note them.--DNicholls 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • If primes are notable, even though there are an infinite number of them, by definition non-primes must be equally notable for not being primes. If a list that potentially contains an infinite number of numbers can be notable, a list that contains number not in the first list is also notable. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:42:39 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
        • You have a curious definition of 'by definition'. Primes are not notable because they're infinite, they're notable because they have a notable quality. Infinity is a side argument. Saying non-Primes are notable because they're not-this-notable-thing would mean I'm notable as a non-John Travolta.--DNicholls 23:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Well then, I'm more notable for being a non-George-W-Bush. Same number of people in the group, just more notability that my group is distinct by lacking. Barno 01:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a difference: The cardinality of the prime numbers is bounded by the cardinality of the integers (aleph nought), but the cardinality of non-prime numbers is greater than aleph nought, as all real numbers in the interval (0,1) are numbers that are not prime. Thus, prime numbers and non-prime numbers have an infinite number, but there are more non-prime numbers. --Pagrashtak 02:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete--DNicholls 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is redicolous. Shanes 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete there is no point to this list whatsoever. And delete List of prime numbers too. User Satori is correct. DES 23:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Having looked at List of prime numbers I find that it is a sensible organized list of particular primes with particular properties, not an attempt to list all primes or randome primes. DES 23:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • A list of non primes can also be ordered by type, and particular non-primes also have particular properties. This list is not an attempt to list all non-primes or random non-primes. Given the chance to grow it will prove just as useful and encyclopedic as the List of primes. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:42:39 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
• I'd love to vote keep, but it probably should be deleted. Hansonc 23:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this. Keep List of prime numbers since it is a list of notable primes. Let us see if the author can establish notability for any non-primes. -- RHaworth 23:23:23, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • Many non-primes are notable for not being primes: for example, 4 is notable for being the lowest interger greater than one that isn't a prime. I could go on, but this sort of useful information belongs in this article, not here. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:56:37 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
    • Delete unless article is improved to the quality level of List of prime numbers before VFD ends. --Metropolitan90 01:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is possible that this list could be expanded to be useful, but right now it is simply an arbitrary list of non-primes and is no more interesting than a list of arbitrarily-chosen numbers would be. If the author would add a list of notable non-primes, with the reasons that the chosen numbers are notable, it might be worth keeping. The List of prime numbers contains useful information, and should not be deleted. ManoaChild 00:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• You have got to be kidding. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ken 02:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete absolutely pointless. Anyone that cares about primality of a number relevant to a practical situation would know enough to look in a reasonably large list of primes to see if the number is NOT there... Kinser 02:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• As Pagrashtak points out, Wikipedia will run out of not-paper before the list in this article even reaches 1. This list is not narrowly construed enough to be useful. And we already have a place for more narrowly construed lists in List of numbers. Delete. Uncle G 03:19:45, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Trovatore 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless article. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite being a supporter of lists this is really stupid. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
• Delete. This is pushing the outer limits of pointlessness. Nandesuka 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make it a category instead. Ashmodai 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to include all numbers. Oh, who am I kidding, delete. linas 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete But maybe worthy of BJAODN because it is even wrong - 1 isn't a prime.Stirling Newberry 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with WP:BJAODN ~~~~ 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A list of primes, even if necessarily incomplete, is actually useful. A list of non-primes is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dystopos 19:31, 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, but by User:Mikkalai, not by me. -Splash 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 99999999

Another large and not particualrly notable number. ARRGH! Arguably speedyable as "no contnet beyond the title" but not quite.

• Delete DES 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to the 99999999^th degree, non notable number. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Whack that with a Delete stick.--DNicholls 23:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to 3*3*11*73*101*137. Delete --Pagrashtak 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ken 02:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete is there some kind of quick/batch delete for these? I'm new to "administrative" stuff here... Kinser 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly copy to BJAODN. --Trovatore 03:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless article. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of numbers that are not the number 42 Delete. Repeatedly. Ashmodai 12:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 1000000 (number) where it is noted as a repeat digit. Whoopie. — RJH 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that article mentions 9999999, not 99999999. --Pagrashtak 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless GNAA ever gets this many VfD listings. --Idont Havaname 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone has too much time on their hands! Keresaspa 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~~~~ 19:17, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Lamberson

I'd call it Vanity but it's mostly blank Hansonc 23:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as nonsense.--DNicholls 23:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy I wouldn't call that a claim to notability. --Etacar11 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Could have been speedied. JamesBurns 10:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Content was 'Master of the Universe (1985- )' which qualifies as one of 'Very short articles providing little or no context' if not WP:CSD criterion A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people with glasses

What? Why? Please delete this. Francs2000 | Talk 23:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete mumblemumble--DNicholls 23:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too open ended. Who defines "famous"? How can the page be kept from growing endlessly? ManoaChild 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible to maintain. Do you include people who wear contacts? Who wear glasses professionally but not at home? Yuck. 23skidoo 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 10:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unneeded, unmaintainable, uninteresting, and at present quite empty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Considering that many people end up using reading glasses when they get older, that could include almost anybody. Not to mention that I think that this kind of list was deleted a while ago - Skysmith 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable list. --Idont Havaname 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin Chowkwanyun

This was a vanity prank... the subjecct of the article has since e-mailed to express his displeasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.238.217 (talk • contribs) 2005-06-26 06:29:03 UTC

• Speedy Delete I would have tagged for speedy personally but since this is here might as well see it through. weak keep the main reason for this article would be notability but I think this may qualify as notable as per Uncle G's statement Jtkiefer 06:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no speedy deletion criterion that applies to this article. Uncle G 13:10:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

quite right, thanks for pointing that out. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy--DNicholls 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Subjects of biographical articles don't get to control whether they appear in Wikipedia. That is a principle that we strongly adhere to in both directions — where a subject wants xyr biography deleted and where a subject wants xyr biography created. I presume that the subject of this biographical article mailed 162.83.238.217 (talk · contribs), the creator of the article, since it is that user that has blanked it twice and then nominated it for deletion here. (CSD criterion G7 does not apply. Others have edited the article.) It is difficult to understand quite why the subject has expressed xyr "displeasure", given that the article says much the same as do the autobiographies in the by-lines to xyr own stories. But we should ignore such displeasure in any case. I've added some references to the article (It had none.) to help editors in deciding whether this writer for Counterpunch satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Vote pending. Uncle G 01:34:34, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
  • I don't have circulation figures for Counterpunch available, but the Wikipedia article on it leads me to infer that it is popular enough that the "published author in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" criterion might well apply. On that basis, Keep. Uncle G 13:10:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:10, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rana lechuza

The shitty machine-translation makes it difficult to be absolutely sure, but I'm pretty certain this is a hoax. You'll note that the link at the bottom is "completely unrelated to the Lechuza owl" - and also consider the mention of "radioactive experiments by crazy scientists". DS 23:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax. User talk:200.73.180.22/contrib has been doing hidden vandalism for a while. -Mariano 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, OK, I over-exagerated all. I just wanted to make it worth reading. Lakes contamination would have been fine, but don't tell me that the experiments thing is not atractive and funny. The man who found the first specimen was not mad. He was australian, but the fact that he supossedly was mad make the text more cinematographic. And the whole thing about the animal madness is pure bullcrap, but everything about the darts is true. If you want to do it, correct the article. Here you will find all the information that you need:

www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/ PDFs/tsprofile_giant_burrowing_frog.pdf Keep verifiable.

• • Ah! Thank you, I've used that information to create Giant burrowing frog, but Rana lechuza is still a mostly-illegible hoax. DS 18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non existing animal. This author has added several spanish entries about madeup animals for us to translate. I think he's done it in the past, but I can't recall the name of the entry (I think it was Bambachos not sure) but again, I can't be positive about this being the same author. drini ☎ 18:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

For a verification that this author is just polluting vandals, see Blue tiger where he admits he made up these animals. drini ☎ 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• speedy Delete; after what happened to Blue Tiger Lectonar 07:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and as an aside, frogs are amphibians, not reptiles... So a reptilian frog owl seems hard to believe. That could be down to translation however. Usrnme h8er 08:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. In Blue Tiger, the author asked us to vote on who would win a fight between the Blue Tiger and the Lechuza Frog: let's make sure they both lose on Wikipedia. Physchim62 18:18, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughn Johnson

A rapper who is 'unemployed with no prospects' - almost a A7 speedy - but he does claim a single, and it is quite funny (image should go too) --Doc (?) 23:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete da boi.--DNicholls 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7, borderline A6 as well. If his single existed, then "Vaughn Johnson" + Batti would get Google hits (it gets none). --Idont Havaname 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I say keep the entry. He may not be very famous, but none the less he deserve a brief mention.User:Lion 21:10, 02 August 2005 (UTC) (vote by 209.148.223.50)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But note that redirect deletion requests belong on WP:RFD. No point relisting it there now, given the voting. -Splash 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy (SpongeBob Episode)

Delete Who needs this? Hugh Jass 02:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy. Redirects are cheap. —PrologFan {Talk} 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Without a consise listing of all SBSP episodes, civilization as we know it may grind to a halt. (But maybe that's a good thing %) Keep redirect, I guess. — RJH 17:28, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extents of an array

dicdef; no way to expand article; not a very common usage AFAICT anyway --Quuxplusone 23:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fortran-specific dicdef. — JIP | Talk 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Fortran-specific dicdef, and doesn't seem that useful either. --Idont Havaname 18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Pavel Vozenilek 19:39, 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.