Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] July 27
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 
16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of movies featuring May-December romances
Delete. Dubious definition SD6-Agent 01:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Kill it with fire. Redwolf24 01:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Set aside the issue of the slang in the title, the intro even says such romances are "ubiquitous" in pre-1950s movies... which makes the list nigh unmaintainable. Beyond that, there's the issue of "What positive contribution does this make to Wikipedia?" I believe the answer to that question is "none." The Literate Engineer 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep This type of list entry is of considerable value to screenwriters, aspiring screenwriters, critical theory students, film buffs, etc. The entry, however, could use some work, both in content and formatting. As far as "positive contributions to Wikipedia" -- Wiki is a reference tool. Wiki has at least 162 movie list entries, based on the category link in the article. How is this list entry less relevant than the other 161 film-list entries? David Hoag 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment I don't believe any of the 162 film-list entries make a positive contribution. 162 articles that actually said something about 162 categorizations of movies would be a positive contribution. 162 lists, though, are just 162 wastes of server space. The Literate Engineer 06:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment I disagree. Lists like this are valuable to film professionals. Comparative archetypes are very valuable, but it can take a long time to create such lists. There are actually books of "movie lists" used by film writers; however, those books are quickly outdated. A list of romantic comedies, for example, is arguably of greater value than a list of Oscar-winners. The latter is simply a laundry list. Wiki has episode lists for many popular television shows. Are they worthless or valuable? Wiki has lists of first basemen. Shortstops. Name the position in sports and there's a Wiki list for them. Is that worthless or valuable. Just because something may not be of interest or value to you doesn't mean it's not of value to someone else. I could care less about seeing a list of forty famous shortstops; however, that doesn't render the list of no value. David Hoag 06:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, useless and unmaintainable list. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, makes a valuable contribution to wikipedia by enabling users to find movies featuring May-December romances. I can't believe how little deletionists seem to care the ability of people to actually use wikipedia for research. Kappa 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. See nothing wrong with this. Unwieldy length doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion. Agentsoo 10:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: For my part, I can't believe the eagerness of my learned friend Kappa (two votes above) to look on the bright side of any article. Look, if we're going to have an article like this with a metaphorical title, the need for an immediate explanation of that title should ring alarm bells -- a metaphor should help explanation, no? But OK, let's not argue against the notion of a year-cycle metaphor (or complain of "hemispherism"), but instead examine how it's applied. December: this isn't the coldest month in the northern hemisphere, but it's the one with the winter solstice, and all the leaves have been shed by many trees. When I think of a May-December romance, I think of the pneumatic Anna Nicole Smith and her wizened nonagenarian (Image:Anna_Nicole_and_hubby.JPG). In movie terms, I'll stretch that a bit and count Harold and Maude. But Roman Holiday? I suggest that one important issue might be whether the age difference is one that raises eyebrows (or worse) within the fantasy world of the movie itself: by contrast, when we coolly consider Cary Grant's late films, his successes with the chicks may seem somewhat surprising, but within the films, they don't. Lists of the usual are impossibly big; this must list the unusual. So what's the unusual factor here: age differences that raise other characters' hackles within the movies, or age differences that improbably don't even raise eyebrows within the movies, or something else again? At this point, I'm inclined to vote "delete", but I'd be happy to see and vote to keep a carefully rethought list. -- Hoary 10:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is the kind of list that can only happen on wikipedia :-) . Wikipedia is not paper. Kim Bruning 12:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It might come in useful...although Hoary is kind of right; but then it's not the list that may be up for deletion, but (some) of it's contents Lectonar 13:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but change the title to May-December romance, define and then list movies having that attribute. Mmmbeer 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per mmmbeer. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pintele Yid 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, mildly interesting although I am a little queasy about the possibility of a POV motive behind it. Do not like the title. I think the list ought to indicate the approximate ages of the characters involved. I want to put a stake in the ground saying that whatever the outcome we definitely do not need one hundred and thirty-one other articles on May-November romances, July-March romances, October-June romances, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unmaintainable list. If it's kept, someone please rename it. --Tothebarricades 20:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: First, it violates the naming convention, as we must use the most common name. Second, it is a list that cannot be maintained. Third, it is inherently POV, which kills lists dead. Why inherently POV? Well, if I date a woman 10 years my junior, and I'm 40, is that May-December? What if it's 20 years, and I'm 50? What if it's 20, and I'm 30? At what point is this a May-December relationship? The metaphor refers to death's-edge and youth's-bloom (i.e. Harold and Maude), and yet the list gleefully flops all over. I can never believe the inclusionist trolls who are so injuried in their personal egos that they cannot tolerate anyone asking for quality in articles. Geogre 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- If you're 30 and dating a woman 20 years your junior, you really need to get your judgement checked. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV, unmaintainable list. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: this is a list of films that feature relationships where one party is older than the other? What's the point in that? Although I agree that the topic might be worth discussion, a list is not, in this case, the correct way to go about it. Why does this list exist when we don't even have a May-December romance [it's a redirect] article? Flowerparty talk 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It probably needs to be cleaned up, but could be useful for research and discussion . Giddytrace 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment re name. Googling to see if I could find the origin of the phrase "May-December," I found www.maydecember.net, a "dating service for individuals seeking age-gap relationships." The home page shows... what would you say? A man in his seventies and a woman in her fifties? The slogan is (gack) "Years apart, coming together." Well, the Internet is always educational. So should this be moved to List of movies featuring age-gap relationships? You know, I don't believe I want to sign this comment... Not me, no way 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: arguably "May-December romances" is more in the common vernacular than "age-gap relationships." The latter sounds like a rather contortionistic euphemism. David Hoag 15:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, wikipedia is not toilet paper. And I thought from the title that a "May-December romance" meant a romance that lasted 8 months. So this also has a stupid title, and therefore if it does (sadly) get kept (more listcruft), the title has to be changed. Proto t c 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to a less misleading definition, maybe like "age-gap relationships". --Vizcarra 22:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, I have redirected it to Science fiction fandom -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gafiate and Fafiate
a science fiction and fantasy fandom jargon term -- a humdrum dicdef of a term of trivial significance in the English language, and one that has already been transwikied. Superfluous to WP. -- Hoary 03:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --malathion talk 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and also delete Fafiate, a redirect I created yesterday. Wasn't thinking. Tualha (Talk) 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've requested speedy deletion for Fafiate. Tualha (Talk) 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- For some reason, that's been removed. It remains a speedy, however, since you are the only editor. You might reinstate it, saying you are the only editor, and citing whichever CSD it is that allows this. -Splash 00:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've requested speedy deletion for Fafiate. Tualha (Talk) 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Science Fiction Fandom; which may need to have a discussion of fannish jargon, since these are widely used terms among fen (fanspeak plural for fan). Neither word (not even the two together) merit a wikipedia entry, even though I used a variation ("state of FAFIA") on my user page.- WCFrancis 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Get A Life. The meanings have more in common with the term than with science fiction in general, though smaller references could be made at the Science Fiction Fandom page.--Mitsukai 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The 20 Cent Quest
Non-notable Flash cartoon, and from the level of personal details, probably self-promotion (the anon contributor's sole contribution). 8 displayed hits for "20 Cent Quest". It apparently can't be viewed anywhere (a newer cartoon is on the school's website), so this ends up being mostly just an ad for some kid's Geocities website. Niteowlneils 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Eclipsed 04:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Won two national awards for student animation in 2003. This is notable--the award presentation was a very prestigious affair at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as TS. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even though the page doesn't mention it's only claim to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 July 2005
- Comment. Oh even the first version mentioned the two ATOM awards, though this was buried in the text at the time. Since then I added references to the awards in the opening paragraph. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable student animation. Only 6 Google hits. The ATOM Award itself might be notable. If someone writes that article, this can be mentioned briefly in the list of winners. jni 13:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I can see this being of interest, although it's borderline notable. --Scimitar parley 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: User:Jni is right: it can be mentioned in the list of winners, after an article on the award exists. This article for its own sake is not needed, as the animation's low Google hit count shows that, at least at this point, it has not proven very influential, successful, or unusual. We don't assess the value of the comic; we report on things the rest of the world has assessed for us. Geogre 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Well the point is that the world has assessed something for us. The animation won two prizes in a prestigious national competition. That it didn't go on to sweep the internet is immaterial. To set internet success as a criterion is like moving the goalposts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, until we get an ATOM Award article, then merge. -Splash 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as the awards are not "a prestigious national competition". ATOM is an acronym for "Australian Teachers of Media", and usually less than 1000 people enter. The very grand sounding "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art. Thus while ACMI does host some notable works, merely being given an award inside it does not make you notable. Considering the very high internet profile that works of this type have, the fact that it didn't "sweep the internet" is material. If and when these young men make some larger mark, this can go into their article under "First Steps". Until then (despite it being someone's pet project) it is not encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. That is very misleading. While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I am not sure what "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art is supposed to mean, but perhaps it is an attempt to argue that experimental and contemporary art lack notability and by extension an organisation holding its awards ceremony here is in some way a lesser one for that. You say that it's significant that a work by two twelve-year olds didn't "sweep the internet." Were this the case then there would be no way of judging the excellence of the work of younger people, which cannot possibly compete against the work of more experienced, more capable adults. This is precisely the kind of problem that awards such as the ATOMs exist to remedy. The same panel that judges the general documentary categories also judges the K-8 categories. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Irritated Comment Yes, misleading indeed. Misleading to juxtapose the location of the award (the "very prestigious affair at [ACMI]") with the prominence of the award itself. Misleading to provide a list of links that fails to demonstrate the prominence of the award. Misleading to spin a statement of fact into a slag of contemprary art in an attempt to discredit. I am very disappointed.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)- I'm totally mystified. I don't understand your response but you're clearly yupset. I apologise for this, it was inadvertent.
- I do happen to believe that the prestige of an award-giving ceremony is good evidence of the prominence of the award--your opinion may differ on that but this doesn't mean people who do not share your opinion are intentionally misleading anyone.
- I said I didn't know why you mentioned that ACMI promoted contemporary and experimental art, and I meant it. What is the relevance of this? I hazarded a guess and got it wrong and seem to have offended you--my apologies for this.
- The list of links that I gave illustrate precisely what I said, no more and no less, that: "While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Saying, "You're clearly upset" has the connotation that I am overly emotional or mentally disturbed. I have respect for "people who do not share [my] opinion". Please:
- Demonstrate that the presentation was a very prestigious affair.
- Demonstrate that this is a prestigious national competition.
- Demonstrate that the award is prized by the Australian independent media.
- I'm totally mystified. I don't understand your response but you're clearly yupset. I apologise for this, it was inadvertent.
-
- Because these are the claims. To date the facts presented are:
- That the awards this year were presented at ACMI.
- That this is a national competition.
- That people who win or are nominated note it on their websites.
- Please see: Google:prestigious "ATOM awards".
Nearly all these links are by people who have won the award. I examined every link in the first four pages and found exactly one that was from an unbiased party.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC) - (This comment has been changed from it's more aggresive original version. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC))
- Because these are the claims. To date the facts presented are:
- Keep, non-notability not established. Furthermore, nominator's assumptions are based in original research. —RaD Man (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm unclear on Niteowlneils' original research, could you clarify, please. ^_^? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this in not encyclipedic.--nixie 01:49, 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 16:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Movies about sports
I suggest deleting this page and redirecting it to sports film. The "sports film" article contains a far more comprehensive list. Dale Arnett 06:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect this larval list. And then put something into sports film besides a list. The Literate Engineer 05:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sports film. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why did you bring this here? You don't need a vote to redirect. Kappa 06:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Because he wants it to be deleted? Delete: The article is not about "movies about sports" but is, instead, a list. Lists are lists, and this is misnamed. Were sports film to be listed on VfD, I'd say that's a clear delete, too, as it is also misnamed. Neither of these is an actual article about sports films, the generic expectations, the reception, the eras of popularity, etc. Neither of them is a valid article. Geogre 21:21, 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 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ne-Yo
May not be notable. Has released a few tracks on other albums, but none of his own. Clarification and expansion (also to preclude a vanity deletion) would be required. Icelight 5 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 8 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, co-wrote a #1 hit. Kappa 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I believe the assertion of co-writing the hit. There is nothing about the supposed artist that the supposed hit belonged to; the link goes to the video game character called "Mario".
My vote is Delete unless actual existance of the co-written hit is verified.OOps, I see it now. Fixing the link in the article. Friday 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - Strong keep. Pburka 01:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. His album was released on August 2, the article almost needs a "current event" tag :) Punkmorten 09:59, 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 VfD doesn't seem ever to have been properly completed, I'm afraid — that is, I can't find any sign of its having been posted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've now added it to today's page, and the VfD will have to run its course from now. (VfDs are being cleared rapidly; if you know of another that's not been closed and should been, check to see if it was properly formed.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep A triage tag is a specialized tool and deserves its own page. You don't put a pictures of a horseshoe types on the horse page :)
This is the first time I've been to a vote page. I don't like unsigned opinions. There was some duplication with the Triage page. I did not see a picture of a tag on the Triage page nor do I think there should be one there. I did see at link at the top from there to the triage tag page, which is good. The loud ad copy was not good but it was easily fixed. --Rcollman 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Miriam Hyman
Not notable. Sad, but wikipedia is not a memorial Proto t c 11:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and delete. Proto t c 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fraid so. Delete. Agentsoo 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- All of this is already in Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings,so gently delete, or perhaps redirect --Doc (?) 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Redirect, was a missing article that I created because it has quite a few links around Wikipedia -- the article itself wasn't intended as a memorial for the person, information is information. — Wackymacs 12:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect, should point to Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Usrnme h8er 13:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- delete. Redirect if you have to. And remove the red links for any other victims that aren't otherwise notable. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings but possibly include a bit more information about the casualty. See http://www.ureader.co.uk/message/1249693.aspx Pigeonshouse 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings - WP:NOT a memorial. --Idont Havaname 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just add an entry to the other article. No need to merge. -Splash 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per above doesn't hurt anyone. Punkmorten 10:14, 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 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] James Compton-Burnett
I'm pretty sure it is a copy vio (but I can't trace it) huglye POV Geni 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for now. It does seem like a copy vio but if we can't trace it then it seems unfair to delete it. Admittedly the article needs work but it's well tagged for that. Agentsoo 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. — RJH 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or shorten it dramatically. Its too long, about an obscure person and very badly written. PhatRita 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. Kappa 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is that the best reason available for keeping it? -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. 1) Being dead doesn't make you notable. 2)The article does not make any claim of notability. 3)Having a theory or two doesn't count as notability, anyone can think those up. No reason for keepletion. -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite - badly written but I remember the content from a course I took last year while in a naturopathy degree program. The concept is 'badly' explained, it looks more like someone's notes with some text attached. I noted there is a couple of loose references in the article. --203.12.172.254 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)berniebear
-
- Comment. I believe 203.12.172.254 was the original "author" of the article. See User talk:203.12.172.254. Perhaps he/she could clear up the source of the information that he/she provided but thinks "looks more like someone's notes with some text attached". Edwardian 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If the original "author" of the article cannot fess up to writing it, it should go. Plus copy vio, VERY poorly written, and non-notable subject as others have mentioned. Edwardian 07:42, 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, article was redirected -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Broadbandit
Neologism or fictitious. Not in any major dictionary, so not worth transwikiing; best to delete. Agentsoo 13:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wardriving. I've heard of Broadbandit as an alternate term for a wardriver, but not for anything that currently exists in this article. On the other hand, I find it ironic that one of this article's definitions is one who prevents people from stealing bandwidth from the owner. Um, yeah.--Mitsukai 14:03, 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 redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Believer Magazine
non-notable, vanity, and unsubstantiated Jdavidb 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
DeleteNot a remotely helpful article in it's present state. --Scimitar parley 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)- Redirect to The Believer (magazine), as suggested below. --Scimitar parley 13:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no context. Dunc|☺ 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete with no context, I don't see how it could be verified or expanded. Friday 19:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep after significant expansion.Redirect to The Believer (magazine) The Believer is a notable magazine made by McSweeney's, Dave_Eggers' publishing house. I'll work on the article a bit later. This is definitely not vanity, it's definitely verifiable (I have a few issues myself), and it's definitely notable. MrBland 21:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (changed vote 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC))
.Provisional keep, if this this is more than a sentence by close of play - otherwise deleteee --Doc (?) 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Redirect per Pyroclastic (good catch) --Doc (?) 00:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Believer (magazine). This is redundant.--Pyroclastic 08:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Pyroclastic. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll withdraw my initial vote to delete (does my submission count as a vote) and now vote for redirect as everyone else has described. Apparently the guy wasn't describing his own magazine after all (although that's a generic enough name it still wouldn't surprise me). Jdavidb 15:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Wenlock Arms
Pretty close to an ad for another London pub (there are a few of those, no?). I see nothing special here. Won some CAMRA awards, but they're not exactly the Victoria Cross. The section on live music and who plays and when really is and ad. If anyone can point out anything about this pub that's at all remarkable I could consider changing my vote. -R. fiend 15:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Shame really, because it's a nicely formatted article and even has a picture. Nevertheless, I have to agree on the nnness. So delete, although I could be persuaded otherwise. Agentsoo 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Rather than delete, I'd like to see this transwikied to a book on English pubs. But I bet a case could be made to keep this page as a historical site. Is it a protected site, by any chance? — RJH 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You mean is the pub a historical site? I don't see why it would be; it's a pub. 1835 isn't even that old for a pub that survived the Blitz. If there is a wikipubs or something then, fine, put it there, but if there isn't one and unless you feel like starting one, I'm not sure exactly how your vote should be interpreted. -R. fiend 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Buildings built before 1840 are Grade II listed by default. CalJW 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what, 500,000 buildings in the UK alone? Are we to practically double the size of wikipedia with articles on individual pubs, houses, etc that are of some slight architectural interest? I've been to many pubs in London, some of which were older than this. I'm really not convinsed this is special. -R. fiend 01:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't true. The oldest portion of the house I live in was constructed prior to 1840 and it isn't listed; there are ca. 20 listed buildings in Cheddar I believe, not all of them date from before 1840, and there are a lot more buildings older than that date in the village. Thryduulf 01:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Buildings built before 1840 are Grade II listed by default. CalJW 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You mean is the pub a historical site? I don't see why it would be; it's a pub. 1835 isn't even that old for a pub that survived the Blitz. If there is a wikipubs or something then, fine, put it there, but if there isn't one and unless you feel like starting one, I'm not sure exactly how your vote should be interpreted. -R. fiend 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, failing that merge with Pubs in London or somewhere. Kappa 20:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Old enough for me. CalJW 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It has enough historical information about the Wenlock Brewery to be useful. It is also very well known in London. I might lose the Jazz and Blues section though, as non-encyclopaedic. There arent that many Georgian pubs in good condition in London either - most are Victorian, so I might add more information about the architecture. Justinc 22:12, 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 removed from vfd as article had expanded since nomination -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dave Meyers
Delete - Not notable, and few Google hits. FunkyChicken! 16:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, pending further notability. Some famous directors got their start directing music videos, but that hardly makes every video director famous. If he gets to the next step in the ladder of directing he can get an article. -R. fiend 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, director of notable music videos. Kappa 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. notable director of high-profile music videos for many hit singles. Won awards for said videos, and is set to direct feature-film debut for 2007. A Google search for "Dave+Meyers+music+video" returns several useful links (which is how I got this information in the first place). We have articles for Hype Williams, Paul Hunter, and Joseph Kahn; this guy deserves his own article as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete he is not notable yet. Perhaps in a few years. . . UncleFloyd 22:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- What makes Meyers less notable than, say, David LaChapelle? --FuriousFreddy 19:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I know this vfd is dead, but I just want to say that I can't believe this article was actually nominated! OmegaWikipedia 04:35, 9 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 with Klingon -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Klingon_cuisine
not notable Star Trek trivia --Dv 16:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Smerge and redirect to Klingon or something. Or just delete it. Very crufty. -R. fiend 17:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Klingon - nn star trek trivia Hosterweis (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because it is imperative that fuck you faggots.
- sign your posts. Hosterweis (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive him, it's Klingon nature to be abrupt.. JamesBurns 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even worth merging if you ask me. Cruftastic. Agentsoo 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. -- user:zanimum
- Mmm... Gagh. Merge into Klingon per above. — RJH 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- (Just like revenge, its a dish best served cold. AND ALIVE!!!) -- user:zanimum (sorry)
- Merge as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam - Thatdog 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Merge to Klingon. That article is already quite big and might get too big with this addition. If this is the case Strong Keep. The theme is often cited in all Start Trek and essential to a right description of the Klingon race.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
- Keep. We list tons of pop-culture crap, and though this isn't something I'm personally interested in, it isn't hard to imagine there's plenty of people who are. --Scimitar parley 21:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Why not? There's already plenty of Klingon junk... Mmmbeer 23:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- WTF is 'cruft'
- Based on the following definition, I'd guess crap. Hosterweis (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
cruft: /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction. 3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".
-
- See Wikipedia:Cruft. Defintion 4 from your quote, I think. -Splash 02:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia should be cleaned up. I recommend the Gay Nigger Association of America for deletion next, it's about time someone got rid of that. Pigger 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are kidding, right? Do that and you will get lynched by a large number of people! -Splash 02:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Vote against deletion -- these are not fanon, or hoax, they are words with which non-Trekxperts will be unfamiliar and which they may well wish to look up, without having to endure listening to the 8-hour Trekkie version, with hand-gestures, convention reminiscences and closest-modern-day-approximations recipes.
has independant value; shopuld be in Wiki somewhere --Simon Cursitor 07:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am the original author of this article and have contributed some of the foods and beverages listed. I really wish to preserve the article's contents. Keep or Merge to Klingon. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. There is enough here for an article. JamesBurns 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Strongly Merge. If the Romulans article can include Romulan cuisine, the Klingons article can include Klingon Cuisine - raktajino is something a lot of ppl might be interested in. Coronela 03:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Google Translate Game
Not encyclopedic, POV, and I'm not even sure this game is common or notable in any way. Malathion 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem worth keeping. Delete. Agentsoo 17:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until someone proofs that it is really wide-spread mania in the net. Renata3 17:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Google#Games_with_Google with NPOV edits. I have fooled around with this and it is mildly amusing, but in the end it is just playing with "lost in translation" and gets old quickly. I don't see how this could be grown into a full fledged article, furthermore the name is misleading since this can be done with any translation software. Hamstersanonymous 17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. rbonvall 17:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Hamstersanonymous. --Idont Havaname 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. And misleading since as the Hamster says, it can be done with any translation software. Thus, a redirect specifically to Google would be misleading at best. -Splash 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Haha, I personally know the guy who wrote this and I can testify he invented the game himself, which means he is the only person in the world aware of it. So that makes it non-notable I guess. JellyWorld 14:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a pastime, but non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 10:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Like Jellyworld, i know this guy personally, and, he probably intended it as a joke, but it doesn't really serve any purpose, and i have never heard of the game until he told me about it. Laune 10:24, 7 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 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Biblical scientific foreknowledge
I think this is original research, it certainly hasn't got anything to do with science, and the few external links given are vaguely on topic but given the amount of server space used for religion on the Internet, I don't think are particularly notable. Perhaps someone more knowlegable about theology (which I can't get my head round at all) can correct me. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and move to under Fundamentalism. POV and claims notwithstanding, this topic is not at this point worthy of an entire article, and seems unlikely to become so. Put in a redirect and move. I agree its crap, its silly nonsense, but it is believed by Fundamentalists and used by Fundamentalistic Apologists to bolster their beliefs and position. Outside of Fundamental Apologetics, however, it has no adherents - hence is a sub-topic of same. --216.53.182.148 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (was not logged in - sorry - this is --KillerChihuahua 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) )
- Delete it seems another nutty joke theory. drini ☎ 17:32, 27 July 2005
- Keep Whether one agrees with it or not, it is an argument made by some Christian apologists. Similar claims are made by Muslims about the Qur'an. --Flex 17:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — the article is fairly neutral as it does not assert that these claims are true. I have read in books such claims going back to the 19th century, so it has some slight historical value. But I would like to see this closely linked into a more general article on the supposed links between scientific knowledge and religious dogma. :) — RJH 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It needs work, but it's a valid topic, and a prevelant belief among fundamentalist creationist christians. Lots of references on the internet: [12] MickWest 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. 24 at 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - fairly neutral article JoJan 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete wiki doesn't have to be the home for everything bible, ad this certianly seems like gibberish--172.152.1.161 18:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, fairly neutral, and a valid topic. --Idont Havaname 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I've stumbled across the article when it was very fresh, and was apalled by unencyclopedic style (look in the history), but this can be cured. It's an argument of enough public visibility so that it cannot be ignored. Unfortunately these articles attract contributions which are against our WP:NOR policy, but this can also potentially be kept under control. --Pjacobi 18:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. It's poorly written and wikified atm. Mmmbeer 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but needs clean up. Phoenix prima
- Keep,clean up, and move under Fundamentalism. If anyone has an issue with its POV, they can update it and provide additional arguments. Unknown
- Bullshit. Keep, though, as believed bullshit. humblefool® 00:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- From original research:
- The following are examples of allowable claims, research, and views (as long as they are verifiable and sources are cited):
- listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
- listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
- including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories);
- citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).
- This appears to fit squarely within those bounds. --Unknown 16:14, 27 July 2005 (PDT)
- Keep. This is grasping at straws, clearly, but it's cited. Gazpacho 01:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename. The title Biblical scientific foreknowledge implies an endorsement that such foreknowledge exists. It should be called something like Claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, or better yet, Modern Science and the Bible, which could also discuss the instances were the Bible contradicts modern science. COGDEN 23:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but clean up and rename. Style is mediocre, there are not enough citations listed in the article which makes it look like original research, and the name should be changed to Claims of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge or something similar. Overall, it's almost NPOV, but lacks citations and needs more counter-arguments for the various points. Xaa 00:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I have to agree with the first poster, this should be moved under Fundamentalism. Franc28 03:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename Bollar 14:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, although it definitly needs a cleanup and a rename along the lines COGDEN proposed. A article about contradictions between the Bible and science would also be acceptable, though I'd recommend making it a separate article, if only because having both on one page would make a very long article. -- Ritchy 29 July 2005
- This looks like unverifiable original research, unless there's a better name for this. Google on biblical scientific foreknowledge, 22,000+ hits. Put quotes around it, 5 hits, the first two of which are Wikipedia. Strong Delete unless more verifible name is given for this concept. Friday 05:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete original research. I really can't see the bible's mentions of the water cycle as notable, any more than the bible mentioning that people have sex - i.e. Biblical proof that ancient Israel knew that people have sex ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep only if rewritten and renamed. IT needs to be copy-edited and it needs some more citations, especially from some more neutral sources. It also needs to be NPOV'd, and should cover some of the text of the Bible that most scientists think are in error, for example. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete It's being very kind to call this original research. William Avery 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Robert McClenon 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This is NOT original research, because by definition it must be, "...any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'..." Since other fundamentalists hold this position, it is not a "new/novel interpretation". It is obviously not encyclopedic, however, as it cherrypicks material which supports a contention (persuasive), both within the Bible and within the scientific literature. This particular user, as it has been shown, has ignored the substantial proof that the OT was compiled at a much later date than he purports, and that it relied heavily upon well-established practices throughout antiquity, such as burying waste and avoiding blood. Not encyclopedia material, this would spread ignorance and confusion rather than enlighten. Only way to preserve this page is to present theories of the origin of information in the OT, and compare to synchronous information in the ancient near east, which would make this a huge page...untenable--skiddum12:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've been trying to clean it up and incorporate some context. I think this can be done in a reasonable compact way by simply referencing other articles. See the paragraph I added Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Historical_Context. Work still remains to be done to reach the higher standard and NPOV, but I still feel it's a valid pseudoscience topic.MickWest 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless, POV, unencyclopedic, and irredeemably so. Probably original research, too; plus the article title is a neologism (fully 24 Google hits). Rd232 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Research, but not original research. Interesting subject. --Vizcarra 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
re: alleged neologism: doing a internet search on Bible and "scientific foreknowledge" yields 879 hits. I cite: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Bible%22+and++%22scientific+foreknowledge%22&btnG=Search
Therefore, it is not a neologism
128.205.191.60 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
re: re: alleged neologism: volume of usage of a neologism does not preclude its being such. you must prove that, according to Wikipedia's definition, as a neologism, "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" is not, " word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. Neologisms are by definition "new," and as such are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period or event. The term "neologism" was itself coined around 1800. It can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." I think this title definitively falls into "reshape older terms in newer language form..."; specifically, you have repeated a neologism created by, "...They are often created by combining existing words (see compound noun and adjective) or by giving words new and unique suffixes or prefixes. Those which are portmanteaus are shortened. Neologisms can also be created through abbreviation or acronym, by intentionally rhyming with existing words, or simply through playing with sounds." (from neologism)--skiddum 12:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic. Eclipsed 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] author's comment, dated 8/1/05
I did a search through PubMed and other sources and found some additional material. Unfortunately I have only time to put it in the Pro Bible scientific foreknowledge link section. Also, there appears to be a article which was written in medical journal in another language which I wish to have translated via friends. I also found other material which I did not want to put in the link section until I did more fact checking. Please be sure to examine the link section.
Also, if anyone speaks Italian I would appreciate any input gained from this article:
G Batteriol Virol Immunol. 1960 Mar-Apr;53:197-204. Related Articles, Links
[The "Leviticus", first codex of medical legislation.]'
[Article in Italian]
CORDIGLIA GJ.
[edit] additional comment by someone else
- Please pardon me while I roll my eyes. — RJH 15:44, 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.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Association Management
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] LunchBox (person)
Appears to be a poorly-written entry about an urban myth that is allegedly widespread. Googling for "LunchBox" + "urban myth" results in apparently no valid results. (On a side note, this entry is quite similar to the Armypants article that was VfD'd a week or two back, and caused quite a lot of vandalism) I say strong delete. jglc | t | c 20:14, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 55th Grey Cup
This page is entirely useless and an appropriate entry could be handled better by Grey Cup. I hesitated at first because they red link EVERY match on Grey Cup. Individual games are definitely NN and not encyclopedic, in this context. Mmmbeer 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
delete for the reasons Mmmbeer gives. Thryduulf 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)- Merge into an article about other grey cup matches, perhaps 1960-69 Grey Cup matches or 50th - 59th Grey Cup matches or something. I see nothing in this article that explains why this particular match is notable enough for an article of its own or how it can grow without the insertion of trivia. Truly notable matches where there is chance of more than two or three short paragraphs of encyclopaedic information can have break-out articles, but I don't see this match as one of them. Thryduulf 13:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- I was all fired up in disbelief for nominating a Grey Cup article until I read the "article" in question. The score is wrong (I suspect the contributor was thinking of the 54th Grey Cup) and that would have been the only encyclopedic part of the entry since the other sentence was POV.
Delete[Vote changed below] but let the red links stand since articles on the Grey Cups will be very interesting and encyclopedic and we don't need all 92 Grey Cup games on the Grey Cup page. The long and colourful history of the Grey Cup will be a long enough article on its own. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)- Keep. NormanEinstein has done the work of creating a suitable stub in place of the previous "article". DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete- inaccurate article. However, individual Grey Cup games are generally notable; although admittedly not quite the same as individual Super Bowl games. If someone writes up good articles for them, they should be kept. --Scimitar parley 13:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The article in its present form is pretty poor, but the 55th Grey Cup is a topic worthy of an article. If the article contains inaccurate information the information should be corrected or removed. This article should be tagged as a stub and given a chance to grow. --NormanEinstein 16:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I've formatted and wikified the article in addition to correcting its factual errors. I think this should sate those that wanted it deleted because of inaccuracies. --NormanEinstein 20:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Very strong keep. --OntarioQuizzer 05:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If Super Bowls deserve own pages, so do Grey Cups. --Woohookitty 02:56, 7 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pubcookie
Advertising. DS 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ad, nn. Mmmbeer 22:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Being open-source, why would it be an ad? It is used in wikis. Plenty of info on Google. --Vizcarra 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Earl_of_Hai_Hun
The name was based on a mistranslation by me -- it is now properly handled by a redirect from Marquess_of_Hai_Hun.
- It's a harmless rediredt, and somebody else might make that same mistranslation when searching for an article. So keep. - ulayiti (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, per above. Also, requests to delete redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, since they're a kind of special case. -- Visviva 23:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as it is pretty unlikely that this particular mistranslation will ever occur again. To the ears of a native english speaker, "Earl of Hai Hun" suggests "Hai Hun" is a geographic place. This is not so, therefor a cautious translator would avoid this formulation. "Hai Hun" (海昏) is a derisive nickname, so a clearer translation would be "Earl Hai Hun" (without the "of"), directly translating as "Earl Ocean Confusion". So if we want to keep as a redirect, I suggest renaming it to "Earl Hai Hun" or "Earl Ocean Confusion" (which gets right to the point). But deletion is probably better. technopilgrim 19:28, 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 to Fat cat if kept. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fat cats
This is an article about a band that might be locally notable but don't appear to have released anything. The way that the article is written (and all produced in a single edit) makes it feel like a copyvio but I haven't been able to find the source(s) if it is.
This and the scatter of external links makes me think band vanity. Thryduulf 22:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if notability is not established, Cleanup otherwise. Apparent data dump. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Copyvio noted source in copyvio notice on article page. -Harmil 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fat cat —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fat cat. JamesBurns 04:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep if re-written. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] STA Travel
Advertisement. Delete. Thatdog 23:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- comment: This is probably a notable company (international student travel organisation), but the article is a copyvio that I have marked as such. Thryduulf 01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with rewrite Definitely notable, lots of branches across the UK (don't know about further afield). But needs rewriting. Proto t c 11:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep with rewrite per proto Youngamerican 14:27, 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.
