Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

[edit] Chip Berlet

Delete. Non-notable. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Keep. Berlet is an investigative journalist best known for his critical coverage of Lyndon LaRouche. A person is not a neologism. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
Keep. This is barely worthy of a response. Cognition (talk • contribs) is a supporter or member of the LaRouche movement, a political cult headed by Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet is an investigative journalist and researcher who specializes in tracking rightwing movements like the LaRouche organization, and he is therefore someone they perceive as an enemy. For that reason, Cognition is trying to have his Wikipedia entry deleted. In addition, the arbitration committee has ruled in two separate cases that LaRouche supporters are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, or to further his cause. This VfD is in clear violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Your ad hominem reasoning is barely worth a response. Just because you happen to get something published doesn't make you notable enough for a Wikipedia entry automatically. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Keep This is either POV-pushing or someone sorely misguided as to notability, neologisms, and Wikipedia. I am prepared to assume good faith and suggest the former, though other actions do lead me to doubt that... This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at its worst. smoddy 2 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
- This page is on VfD because he is not notable, which is evident in the tiny number of hits he generates on google. [1] Cognition 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
  - I shall make several points, for posterity's sake:
    1. There are 32900 pages on Google for me. That's plenty high enough for "notability".
    2. Notability is not a policy. See Wikipedia:Importance.
    3. Verifibility is a policy. Look at the references. This is verifiable.
    4. Would you care to explain the neologism comment? smoddy 2 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
    - - Non-notable, not important, same thing here. Hardly anyone read his book. And the reviews on Amazon are quite revealing. [2] Cognition 2 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
        
        I said they were the same thing. Try reading the page. Or try clicking on Wikipedia:Notability. Then see where you end up. Then read. smoddy 2 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
        
        I read it and I still think he's non-notable. Cognition 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
        
        Then you fail to understand that non-notability is not a criterion for deletion, however much you may like it to be. smoddy 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Invalid listing, WP:POINT. — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by User:Cognition. He has attempted to insert Lyndon LaRouche POV in the article. When that failed he retaliated with this nomination. He originally claimed that the article is "clearly a non-notable neologism", which makes just as much sense as anything else he's had to say about this. Quale 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Ambi 3 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
Keep. The article has plenty of criticism from a variety of sources, and gives LaRouche material the space it deserves, i.e. very little. Why is this being nominated, because most of the criticism isn't from LaRouche sources and the nominator thinks it should be, or what? Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
Keep - nomination made in bad faith. Rob Church 3 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
Keep and sanction Cognition for badfaith VfD. El_C 3 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
Keep. Notability actually is a criterion for deletion of biographies, but Berlet certainly meets it. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
Speedy Keep RIGHT NOW This is such an obvious bad-faith nomination that I can not imagine why it's still on VFD this long after nomination. I agree with the sanction on Cognition. This VFD nomination is a complete perversion of Wikipedia means.Unsinkable 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
Keep, and calm down everybody. Cognition appears to be new here and has made a nomination that many people disagree with. That's no biggie, the net result is that the article will have a templated box on it for about a week. Yet somehow, life goes on. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
Keep, preferably speedy keep, but on the other hand calls to sanction the nominator seem extreme. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
- No excessive, not overstated — extreme, no less. El_C 4 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  - Well, I thought about excessive, but I went with extreme. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
  - One particular editor has fairly recently adopted the attitude that any sanction against any editor is "extreme". He appears to have adopted this attitude immediately after being sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for obsessive and possessive editing of any articles referring to a particular young female singer. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
    - No such attitude exists, so both sentences are false. Everyking 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  - You're right, I should have said "just about any sanction" and "exhibits behaviour indicating that etc." It's possible he still supports some sanctions against editors, though I haven't seen any evidence of that. And while his behaviour indicates that he possesses this attitude, he may well feel something entirely different and is making all these statements for some unknown and unfathomable reason. I apologize for making this inference merely based on all available evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
    - I block vandals on occasion, as you can see in my admin log, so that right there refutes your claim that I support no sanctions. In fact I support many sanctions, provided there is due caution and fairness involved. Everyking 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  - I said "just about any sanction". Reviewing blocks logs reveals that perhaps even a half dozen times, this editor/admin has blocked the most egregious IP vandals for a whole day, and has even, on a couple of occasions, blocked obvious impersonators. None of this, of course, is at all relevant to the evidence he displays regarding sanctions against editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
    - How is that not relevant? Are you making a distinction between that and ArbCom stuff? Everyking 4 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
  - Briefly blocking obvious vandals is not the same as sanctioning editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
    - Unless they're vandals, I'm not empowered to sanction anyone, unless they have violated the 3RR, but I don't believe in that so I don't block people for that. Everyking 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
  - Ah, but that wasn't the issue. You oppose any sanctions against editors, never support them, even some quite obvious trolls. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
Can I vote twice? Dosen't matter, I will! Keep and sanction Everyking for kicks. El_C 4 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Speedy keep and sanction those responsible. NPOV, not LPOV (LaRouche Point Of View). — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
Keep and sanction for bad faith. carmeld1 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Bruce Penton

Delete non-notable vanity. Google returns 415 hits, but only the top 3 seem to be this guy.-Splash July 2, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Even his Wheat City Journal is of marginal notability, and I wonder if maybe that too ought to be deleted. — Ливай | Ⓣ 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Denni ☯ 2005 July 2 00:50 (UTC)
Merge to Wheat City Journal, as that's what he's known for.--Pharos 2 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
Merge to Wheat City Journal for the reasons given above. --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:07 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:27 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

[edit] General K

Obvious vanity about some guy in Canada. My favourite quote: "He likes pie". See that right there, that's notability for ya! Harro5 July 2, 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Delete. This is such an obvious delete I can't believe it's come to VfD to be frank. -Splash July 2, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Speedy. "A mystical being from another realm ... resides somewhere in Canada". Seems to be {{nonsense}} to me. --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 8 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

[edit] Chronicle 9

Apparent self-promotion (article is the only contrib of User:GeneralSkaal, and the site lists "General Skaal" as one of its four writers) for non-notable http://www.freewebs.com/chronicle9/ Website, self-described as "under development". Only one hit for http://www.freewebs.com/chronicle9/ and the site visitor counter shows less than 1300 visitors. Quotes from article: "Most of the sites are in a general state of dis-repair, and the owners claim to be locked out of a few of them.", "Eventually it will contain at least one continuing comic series, stories and factsheets..." Niteowlneils 2 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOT a webdirectory; esp. not for "vaguely interesting" websites. -Splash July 2, 2005 01:52 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
Delete: An insult to us and a waste of our not-paper. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not a web directory. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Tobycat's sentiments. Moriori July 5, 2005 23:36 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 8 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

[edit] List of musicians that are popular amongst Nickelodeon fans

Another random x/y list from SamuraiClinton. Overlap of POV, original research, and unverifiable; seemingly transient, as well. In this context, exactly what do "popular" and "fans" mean? How is this verified? How is it kept up-to-date? Niteowlneils 2 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Delete - irreparably subjective. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Delete. ^^ --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:52 (UTC)
Weak delete. I can see a possible "list of musicians mentioned on Nickelodean" (which is part of the preamble to the list) emerging from this. Though, since that's not the article title in question, it can be deleted until that alternative is created. -Splash July 2, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Delete. What next? List of cartoon that are popular amongst heavy metal fans? This is a meaningless x/y. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
Delete, I am speechless. Opens a can of worms for all sorts of Original Research stuff. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 2 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
Delete no use --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:09 (UTC)
How about List of musicians that have made guest appearances on Nickelodeon shows? As long as the specific show was mentioned in conjunction with the musician, the verifiability problem, at least, would go away, as possibly would the transience problem. If that is acceptable, then we could suggest working on it to the original author. Uncle G 2005-07-02 04:25:19 (UTC)

Especially under the circumstances (I finally got up to speed after posting this nom), I'd have no objection to such an article. Niteowlneils 2 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Delete POV and not inherently encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
Delete not especially encyclopedic as well as not really having much meaning as per comment by Grutness. Jtkiefer July 2, 2005 05:17 (UTC)
Delete. I'm no list deletionist, but this is too much. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] July 2, 2005 07:19 (UTC)
stunningly obvious delete jamesgibbon 2 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
Delete Utterly pointless, impossible to maintain, completely POV. Cyclone49 2 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)
Delete but consider moving the info to another title per Uncle G's suggestion. A list of musicians who've guested on the network may have been the original intent of this list. - Lucky 6.9 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Delete this list is completely pointless and without a sighted source is quite possibly completely inaccurate. A list of musicians who have made appearences on the Nickelodian network would at least be maintainable, if it is needed in wikipedia or not is another issue. - Diploid 2 July 4:10pm (EST)
Delete. A list like the one that User:Uncle G has proposed is much better than this one, as this one is inherently POV and non-encyclopedic. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
Delete Not only has Nick sold out to the Fairly Weird Parents/Spongedumb/Jimmy Neutral generation, this article has no use. --fpo July 3, 2005 21:13 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with User:Uncle G. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 6 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. (by Francs2000 2005-07-11 22:21:11)

[edit] The ugly theorem

Non-notable theorem. Gets no Google hits, and since it applies to only two real numbers, is not exactly powerful. Denni ☯ 2005 July 2 00:43 (UTC)

Delete. Somewhat interesting, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Rename to Ugly number since this is a property not a theorem(see comment below ↓). If it has been proven that it applies to only 2 natural numbers, it is extraordinarily notable, and the concept is any case encyclopedic. The article associated with the discoverer is very short, too, but that's not up for VfD because Google easily establishes notability. Not wishing to judge one article by another, but it seems that a theorem/concept from a notable mathematician has a fair shot at being notable itself (though is not guaranteed to be so). -Splash July 2, 2005 00:54 (UTC)
Delete in light of the discussion that has ensued; particularly the children's book thing. -Splash 5 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
Keep. noteable Billhpike July 2, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Keep. That's a pretty interesting little mathematical trivia piece. COuld do with some more history or how the guy came up with it. Has it been proven that there are only three numbers that work? Harro5 July 2, 2005 01:03 (UTC)
- I've not managed to find any references to this idea anywhere yet. After longer consdieration, I think perhaps this article is misnamed — without some result, it's hardly a theorem and more a property of numbers, like the perfect numbers. I'd be tempted to move it to Ugly number in consequence. I've amended my vote. Splash July 2, 2005 01:58 (UTC)
Delete. The information cannot be verified. Oleg Alexandrov 2 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
Delete. As Splash noted, not a theorem, and there is no reason to believe anyone calls this "ugly number", so you can't move it there either IMO. It's possible that there is something here that is encyclopedia-worthy, but in order to decide, we need a real name for the category, and some cites. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 02:23 (UTC)
As per Oleg Alexandrov and Dcarrano, citations are vital, in particular for the proof that the article asserts has been found that only those three numbers have this property. (If the proof has the shape that I suspect it to have, I can understand why some mathematicians would consider it to be ugly.) ~~If sources are cited and the content can be verified, then Keep at whatever name turns out to be the one used in the sources; otherwise, as the article stands, Delete.~~ Uncle G 2005-07-02 03:42:09 (UTC)
- In response to my comment about a lack of an ISBN, an ISBN was supplied. The research by Nabla and Scimitar below convinces me that "ugly" is just an arbitrary adjective used for a property in a mathematics book for students, just as it apparently is used (for a different mathematical property) in the mathematical exercise that Nabla found. This is just a nonce definition of a minor mathematical property, therefore. And at best, what we have here is an erratum for the book, mentionable in Masahiko Fujiwara. Delete. (That was the shape that I suspected, by the way.) Uncle G 8 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
Delete. Folks voting should note that this was discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The consensus was to bring it here because the mathematicians don't believe it exists. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
Delete as it stands (without citations or real classification)Onlyemarie 2 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Delete It seems to be a little mathmatical trick. If it only applies to 2 numbers, then it holds no real promise to the world of Mathmatics and has no place in an Encyclopidia. Vipersp51 2 July 2005 5:16 (UTC)
Delete I doubt this is true because 1458 is also "ugly". (1+4+5+8 = 18, 18 x 81 = 1458) Althought it seems there are no more of these through 1 million... Rangek July 2, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
- Ha. Now the text says 1458 too. Nice. You know, it only took me like 5 minutes (well, 10 if you count the time it took to write the program) to search from 1--10000000 and uncover 1458. Does this "professor"'s "proof" mention 1458 or not? Since no one has cited any references, I guess we'll never know. Rangek July 2, 2005 20:37 (UTC)
- Yeah, I added 1458 to the article since it was already there, but in the midst of a bunch of off-the-wall silly stuff. -Splash July 2, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
delete: On the basis of the text "This theorem is refuted since 1458 was repoted to happen," this is not a theorem, and therefore this article is nonsense. If the article can be fixed and the notability established, perhaps I would vote keep. Brighterorange 2 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
Delete. Since the theorem is falsified by 1458, it fails the verifiability requirement. Quale 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
- Actually, the proof that there were only 3 such numbers being wrong would not make the article unverifiable. This is not mathematical verification, but encyclopaedic verification. What makes the article unverifiable is that so far no source has been proferred (apart from a vague statement that Masahiko Fujiwara published this theorem in "a book which became a best-seller in Japan", which entirely fails to state the ISBN of the book or any way of determining what book is being referred to) for the theorem's publication by anyone anywhere. It's less about whether the proof is correct, and more about whether the statement that such a (fallacious) proof was published is correct. The only thing that the addition of 1458 does is cast yet further doubt on the existence of any actual source material. Peer-review of a mathematical article would have caught that error within minutes, as demonstrated here. It looks like what is actually happening is that the original publication and peer-review of this mathematical assertion is happening here in Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Uncle G 2005-07-03 00:06:09 (UTC)
  - I don't fully agree with you. It's true that a false theorem could be encyclopedic, but that requires special circumstances. As you note, there's no evidence of that here. It is absolutely not verifiable that the information in the original article is correct, because in fact it was wrong. An encyclopedia article that simply stated "1+1=3" would fail verifiability even if there is someone somewhere who claims that it's true. You could instead say "Japanese mathematician xxx claims 1+1=3" and that might be verifiable, although it would probably be doubtful that it was notable. The article I voted on fit into the former category (made a claim that was demonstrably false), thus not verifiable. Quale 3 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
    - Actually the article that you voted on was of the "Japanese mathematician xxx claims 1+1=3" type. See this version, for example. However, given that the author has been incorporating results derived from this very VFD discussion into the article (See this edit and this edit.) it still appears as though the peer review is happening here in Wikipedia. Uncle G 8 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOR. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:31 (UTC)
Comment The ISBN number now listed is a genuine book (in Japanese) which has a sales rank of 92 on Amazon.co.jp. I think further checking needs to be done about the contents of the book. Although it does seem strange to be called "the ugly theorem", it could be due to poor translation from the book. Bobbis 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOR. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
Comment. Besides 1, 81, 1458, and 1729, there are no "ugly numbers" up to 10⁹. It's also interesting that 1729 is the Hardy-Ramanujan number. Eric119 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
- Also, I would hazard that the article is more or less correct. The result is natural because the number of digits grows logarithmically with respect to the number itself and so the product eventually falls short of the original number. Of course this isn't a rigorous proof. Eric119 3 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
Anon comment. Nothing relevant mentioned in David Wells' The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, which is full of just this sort of stuff. 82.210.118.102 3 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
Iff the book is valid, then I see nothing wrong with keeping this article, albeit probably under the name Ugly number. I also note that the article on 1729 cites 91 as having relevance as far as the Hardy-Ramanujan number is concerned, which is at the very least an interesting coincidence. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
Keep (pending further facts), but rename to (for instance) Fujiwara's ugly theorem, or perhaps Fujiwara's ugly property. An ISBN number is now given, so it's falsifiable (see this page on amazon.co.jp as evidence that the book exists), the current sales rank seems to be 132 which would certainly make it notable, especially if it turns out to be wrong. Masahiko Fujiwara is a mathematician at Ochanomizu University with 22 publications on MathSciNet. I also note that nobody seems to have checked the book. The name Ugly theorem reminds me of a fragment in Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology, in which he states that some theorems, while true, are devoid of any interest. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 4 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps, if people feel that the result an sich is not important enough, we should merge the article with Masahiko Fujiwara or Mathematical beauty? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 4 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
- Changing to abstain. Based on the available information, it's on the borderline of notability for me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 7 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
Delete, as per Vipersp51, and also because:

Its almost an insult having such a thing as a mathematicians only referenced work.
What is the relevance of such property?

Why is it almost an insult? Because it took me less than 15 min to find that this is true for 1, 81, 1458 and 1729, and no other number up to 5 digits.

Its easy to show that any number with 5 digits can't have this property:

The sum of the digits would have a maximum of 45(=5*9), a reversal of such number would at most 93 (reversing 39<45), so any such product is less than 4185, which as 4 digits, thus is smaller than the target value.

This can be performed by any high school student studying math. A generalization of this for any number of digits is also relatively simple, yet quite boring to post on VfD.

Last, but not least, a Google search shows Ugly numbers as a completely different thing: Ugly numbers are numbers whose only prime factors are 2, 3 or 5.

--Nabla 2005-07-04 15:31:58 (UTC)

Delete. The book is for junior high students (thank you, Babelfish!) as is evident by looking at the classifications at the bottom of the amazon page linked to above. Thus, this ceases to be a theorem, and more of a math game for junior high students. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
I would say keep, but I ought to reveal that Masahiko is a friend of mine from way back. This material is also perhaps not quite stand-alone. Merge into the article on MF. Who, by the way, is quite prominent in Japan for other things, such as opposing the government on education reform. Charles Matthews 20:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Masahiko is your friend! Is it true? Masahiko has been giving his opinion on how education in Japan ought to be. It seem as though he has a conservative idea. His main opinion is that Japanese children should not

learn English while they're young.Instead, they should go back to Japanese classic literature. As I said in the article, Masahiko thinks great Math comes from the sense of beauty. So he thinks what children should do is to learn and memorize beautiful Japanese poems and phrazes. Have you heard from him about those ideas?User:DYLAN LENNON 21:42, 10 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Movement

Band vanity. Contents: "The cross movement is a hip hop band from Philadelphia P.A" and a link. Meets no criteria under WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. Harro5 July 2, 2005 00:49 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep. ~~I'd normally see the back of what seems to be a clear piece of spamvertising. However,~~ allmusic.com says they have 5 albums and Google gives 22,000 hits for "Cross movement" "hip hop" (needed to avoid the Red Cross movement!). I think they probably meet WP:MUSIC #3 (though I'm no expert in hip-hop), and, perhaps maybe sort-of #6. -Splash July 2, 2005 01:12 (UTC)
Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
Keep, a sufficiently notable band jamesgibbon 2 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)
Keep, five albums satisfies WP:MUSIC. The top five Google hits are matches. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
Keep, Christian music and hip hop are two of my most hated forms of music, so the idea of a combination of the two fills me with sadness, but dispite that they are definitely notable Cyclone49 2 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
Keep and expand. As noted by other users, they meet Wikimusic project criteria. Two of these albums have charted on Billboard's genre charts and one has reached the Billboard pop charts. They are certainly significant within their genre. [3]. However, their article does not currently indicate notability, Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
I've done a bit of a cleanup effort and made this into a palletable stub. Should stay now. Harro5 July 3, 2005 00:17 (UTC)
I have expanded further adding discography. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
Strong keep after nice research by Capitalistroadster. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Keep Thanks for the expansion I am kinda new to this thing I recently added current and foriegn members, a videography, and an interview. I hope to add more info in the near future

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Transwiki. Done, so I will delete the page on this end. Woohookitty 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tafelspitz

This is just a recipe, apparently for a Hungarian meal the King used to like. Delete. Harro5 July 2, 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Delete, nn. Articles that are merely recipes are not encyc, IMHO. They need to talk about a notable food-type. I think this thing sometimes gets unloaded onto Wikibooks? -Splash July 2, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete. All that yelling... Denni ☯ 2005 July 2 02:43 (UTC)
Cleanup and send to Wikibooks. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
Transwiki to the Wikibooks Cookbook. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:26 (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.

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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Relief Agency

This is a solicitation for a charity, not an encyclopedic article. It might be a good cause, but it doesn't belong here unless somebody cares to give it a complete rewrite. Dr.frog 2 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Delete that crap. Elfguy 2 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Keep. Advertising deleted after major overhaul. Anyone who is interested in helping out can click on the external link to the charity's official website and follow the navigation there.--Defrosted 2 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Keep the cleaned up article. Minor Chabad charity. Klonimus 2 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
Keep. I agree, the cleaned up article looks fine now. Thanks. Dr.frog 2 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)
Keep the revised version. Nice work on the cleanup. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
Keep: Good rescue. I wish it weren't necessary. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
Keep, please mark articles like this for cleanup, not deletion. Decent rewrite. - Jersyko talk July 2, 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Keep - the rewrite is acceptable and has potential for expansion. Rob Church 2 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Keep as notable charity. Well done those people who cleaned it up. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

[edit] Tray Shadix

When they have to shoot their own promo photo, you know it's non-notable vanity. Denni ☯ 2005 July 2 02:12 (UTC)

Delete --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
Delete indeed. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Delete. Although someone went and blanked it. Anser 2 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
Delete - the page itself confesses that the person is only locally known. Rob Church 2 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
Delete. Canonical example of vanity. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 2, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Brown

delete vanity page Billhpike July 2, 2005 02:14 (UTC)
Delete --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:15 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
Delete - it's vanity, and it's a fragment. Rob Church 2 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 (speedy) was copyvio from http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/040925/1/296d.html. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Brown

Googled - cannot find any mention of this person being a notable football player for any of the clubs mentioned. Note that this article has been deleted before (see above!). Strongly suspect hoax. Stephenb (Talk) 12:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Durova 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete No verifiable evidence that Luke Brown is a soccerplayer of any great note. The previous Luke Brown article was on a different person an Amherst student so it should not be speedied as recreated content. A Google search for "Luke Brown" Liverpool does not verify the claims see below [4]

According to Google, the best known Luke Browns are an artist and a boatbuilder although I don't know whether either is notable enough for Wikipedia see [5]. Capitalistroadster 17:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Richard Otis

Non-notable vanity Denni ☯ 2005 July 2 02:16 (UTC)

Delete --IncMan July 2, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Delete: A 15 year old with a fantasy corporation. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
Userfy to User:Xira. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
Delete - vanity, possibly advertising too. Company isn't well-known at all. Rob Church 2 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Userfyif at all possible; otherwise delete as vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:29 (UTC)
Delete--Bhadani 6 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] Vonage VoIP Forum

not encyclopedia material Elfguy 2 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Delete. Advert. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
Delete sounds like marketing to me -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
Delete forum advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
Delete - advertising, and wholly unnecessary. Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 redirect to Growing Up Gotti. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Gotti Jr.

Article by anonymous AOL user "64.12.117.5" and "Gotti Babii 89". John takes his appearance very seriously. His favorite designers are Versace, Gucci, Kenneth Cole, Armani. His hobbies are sports, reading, music, computer studies, and hanging out with friends. He is a charismatic person. John was named after his grandfather, John Gotti. He loves to laugh and has a great sense of humor. His favorite perfume is Versace. John is outgoing and loves to have fun. In school, history is his best subject. He enjoys reading the following magazines: Source, Rides, and XXL. Current content is not encyclopedic. Links to a fan website whose two contacts are also on AOL. Possible website promo. Although there is some notability for John Gotti Jr., the reality TV show is mostly about the family, not just him. Suggest merge to Growing Up Gotti however I'll ask here for other's views on this first. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Merge if any material deserves it. -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Delete: The information is fanboi, so I don't think it belongs anywhere on the site. It's breathlessly in raptures, and the article on the show should really be about the show, and not a guide to writing letters to one of its subjects. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
Redirect to Growing Up Gotti. There really isn't much to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 16:25 (UTC)
Redirect to Growing Up Gotti. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 18:17 (UTC)
Redirect to Growing Up Gotti most definitely. The article does not really tell about his life. It sounds more like an ad in the Personals Section of a newspaper. - User:Roxieandmartha July 2, 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 18:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Render braswell

Moving here from CSD. Vanity pages can't be speedied but they can be VfD'd. Delete. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Delete clearly vanity -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
Delete: Fails Geogre's Law. Some dude with hobbies. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
Delete, because it is vanity and shows no notability. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:42 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. -- BMIComp (talk) 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 18:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu

I found this on CSD. It doesn't look like a speedy candidate, but it is basically an advert so it probably should be deleted. JeremyA 2 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

Probably advertising, definitely not notable. Delete. Fire Star 2 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
Delete This is pure ad, and not notable -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
Delete promo. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 2005-07-02 20:03:32 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

2005-07-02 10:59:20 Duncharris deleted "Template:Portuguese grammar index" (requested by author who should've creatd in in wikibooks, not here.)

[edit] Template:Portuguese grammar index

Sorry... This is a part of a WIKIBOOK but I got confused... Delete it now. José San Martin July 2, 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Mark your template with {{deletebecause|CSD #G7}}. No need for VFD. Templates are not deleted by VFD anyway. Uncle G 2005-07-02 04:07:03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 2005-07-02 20:03:30 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

2005-07-02 10:59:20 Duncharris deleted "Template:Portuguese grammar index" (requested by author who should've creatd in in wikibooks, not here.)

[edit] Template:Portuguese grammar index

I got confused... This is part of wikibooks. I've put it here wrongly. Speedy delete! José San Martin July 2, 2005 03:25 (UTC)

I've speedy delted it. Though you should note that templtes go on WP:TFD, but you could have posted it at [WP:SD]] anyway. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. The numeric vote is roughly a tie, but the author says it should be deleted and the keep votes were weak. Will delete. Woohookitty 05:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity in The Simpsons

This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a Simpsons trivia listing. Fine for a fan site, but what is it doing in an encyclopedia? If someone could point me to a Ph.D. dissertation on nudity in The Simpsons, I might concede that there's a topic here to be discussed, but otherwise it's just snippets from episodes. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

I'm the author, so I don't know if I can vote. But we also have a References to Star Trek in The Simpsons. Anyway, this is a dimension of the show CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
Keep (but a weak vote only). No stupider than 17,497 other junky trivia articles we wind up keeping. Tannin 2 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
- Thanks. And also, see the "See also" section. We already have this kind of stuff. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  - OK. I'll VfD those also. Nothing personal. It's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't consider this an encyclopedia article. If it's valid, so also would be Celebrity appearances in The Simpsons, Animals in The Simpsons, Sports in The Simpsons, Cross-dressing in The Simpsons, Alcohol in The Simpsons and hundreds of similar topics. Is there a Wikicities site for The Simpsons yet? If so maybe we could move the article there. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
    - In some articles we do cover celebrities on the Simpsons. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
      - I'm not the first to say this, but: the fact that we have articles that don't really belong on Wikipedia is not a reason to add more such articles. Like I said, this is nothing personal. I consider Wikipedia a public resource, and would thus prefer that it not dedicate server resources, memory, and bandwidth to serving as a fansite host. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
        
        Now that I've had a chance to clear my head, let me start over: the reason I started this was not because we have other trivia articles, but because it's a dimension of the show and a depiction of nudity, but wouldn't fit in either (already long) major article. Simpsons is a cultural item of nearly equal importance to other major fictional topics. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
Redirect again, could be turned into a one or two sentence mention that nudity features in the show. I'm not feeling pity on the hardware (never pity the hardware, that's a rule of mine), but I think we do need to keep information contained as well as possible to avoid incompatible edits to similar info. -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
Keep, would fit fine in an encylopedia of the Simpsons. Kappa 2 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
Weak keep You can see from the furore over Janet Jackson's wayward nipple, that the sight of a naked body on television is a huge issue in the United States. Americans need to get out more. --Lee Hunter 2 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
Keep, This "encyclopedia" has articles about plenty of other crap. Get rid of that, then come back to this. Pacific Coast Highway July 2, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Delete: There is no discussion of nudity in the Simpsons. It is, instead, a catalog of nudity in "The Simpsons." Until we become an encyclopedia of "The Simpsons," there is no place for what amounts to yet another cross index. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of "The Simpsons". And "Star Wars". And "Pokemon". . . . Pburka 2 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
~~Do we have an article on The Simpsons? If so, merge it with that. I don't see the need for a separate article; this could do well as a section within a longer article.~~ See below. Rob Church 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
- Pages need to be kept to a reasonable size. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  - Indeed. I had no idea that the main article was so large. In that case, I vote to keep the article, although external references in the Simpsons could be a new article itself... Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
Delete. Simpsons-cruft. Go start a Wikicities Simpson site and put it there. --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
Keep. This is in the same boat as "Buildings in (City Name)" or any other really specific article. We have articles on basically every single London Tube station, but this can't exist!? This article would normally belong in the main Simpsons article, but, because this is huge, split-offs are appropriate. -newkai | talk | contribs July 3, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
Delete Simpsons cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
Looking back on this, I regret it now. Delete. Seeing as how I'm the principal author and Wikipedia is not a democracy, I think that advances the case for deletion. CanadianCaesar 4 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Woohookitty 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References to Star Trek in The Simpsons

This is fansite material, not an encyclopedia article. It consists entirely of plot snippets from episodes, and doesn't have anything resembling an encyclopedic discussion of a topic. Nor could it ever have such a discussion, given the title. Should be moved to a Wikicities community, or Memory Alpha, or some other such site. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Redirect to The Simpsons. What they could do is mention about referencing other shows in a sentence or two. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Redirect agreed, a simple note would suffice -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless list, and the article on The Simpsons is already too big to have this shoved into it. Also, I can see how an encyclopedic discussion could be made of the use of a particular set of pop-culture references in a different pop culture setting. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
- What would constitute an "encyclopedic" discussion of Star Trek references in The Simpsons? If I stretch far enough I can imagine such a thing, but it would qualify as original research. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  - Oh, I'll add one - after I pass the Bar exam. No original research, I assure you - I suspect there are sources out there. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:31 (UTC)
Keep as per BD2412. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
Delete fancruft times two CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)
Keep Trans-series fan cruft. Klonimus 2 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
Delete: Simply a cross index. That's not an article. It's also not a list that serves a function. Besides which, "The Simpsons" refers to "Star Trek" so often as to be ridiculous. Is "References to The Shining in The Simpsons" next (they do that a lot) or "References to Courtship of Eddie's Father" after that? Geogre 2 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
Keep. There is a References to Star Trek list, and it appears this Simpsons list was moved from that page to cut down on its size, along with similar pages for Futurama and South Park. HollyAm 2 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
Keep No strong arguement to delete. That it's a subpage of other fan-cruft isn't a big deal to me, at least it's notable fan cruft. SchmuckyTheCat 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. The Simpsons and Star Trek are both significant cultural phonomena and long-lived television programs. Their storylines frequently touch upon important themes and controversies in the broader culture. The content of the shows are a relevant source for encyclopedia content.Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
Keep. Ditto Tobycat L-Bit 3 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Delete Simpsons/Trek-cruft. The pop-cultural import of either Star Trek or The Simpsons is not in question -- the insanely detailed level of granularity of this trivial information is. --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
Keep as per Tobycat CanadianCaesar 3 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
Keep as Tobycat. Rob Church 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
Delete Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, should there not be some utility to the things that are contained herein? (If I had been uncertain, the misquote of ultimate for utility in the article would done it.) WhatAreYouLookingAt? 7 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Recreation of previously deleted content. Hedley 3 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Snodgrass

nn high school student, delete. Gazpacho 2 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

ditto, delete. User:ColoradoZ

Speedy delete: Massive vandalism taking place. Taunting, etc. Essentially, the original article was overwritten by childishness. The original was VfD, but, given the vandalism by her friends, I think there's not that much point in "waiting a month." Geogre 2 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Being a target of vandalism doesn't make it a speedy candidate. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
Delete because vanity. Sietse 2 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
Delete - but at least she'll be able to market her yearbook to her peers. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] List of War on Terror incidents

A strange list - at the same time too broad and too selective - of terrorist incidents under a vaguely defined theme of war on terror. At the very least it needs either a new title (List of terrorist attacks on the US and Russia?) or to be true to the original title would have to include incidents other than actions of terrorists. But there are a number of lists of terrorist incidents already floating around which cover all the same items in this list. --Lee Hunter 2 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

The list is not really all related to the United States government's "War on Terror." For example, the attack on Beslan is more related to a territorial crisis that long predates the Al Qaida attacks of 11 September 2001. The incidents cannot be related the same way battles in a single war or conflict can. This too easily simplifies every act of international/territorial violence into a war on or with terror. User:ColoradoZ --ColoradoZ July 2, 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Agree with the above - the content is ill-conceived and ridiculously broad (the 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut is somehow related to the "War on Terror", a term coined by the Bush administration?). The title strikes me as rather POV as well. Either delete, or if folks think this is a useful redirect, redirect without merge to List of terrorist incidents. CDC (talk) 2 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly naive attempt to tie in various complex events under the heading of "War on Terror". — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Trilobite jamesgibbon 2 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
Strong Keep, because:

1. just because a User disagrees with one of the inclusions here does not mean that the list should be deleted.

2. just because someone disagrees with the "Bush" War on Terror does not mean that the list has not been proposed by academics and politicians and thus is valid and should remain.

3. This list should be a sublist or subcategory of List of terrorist incidents.

4. If such a list were to be placed on the War on terror page, editors would remove to this page, as is frequently done.

--Noitall July 2, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Delete. If this list has been proposed by academics and politicians, then provide references. A politician caring that much about Wikipedia would probably be encyclopedically notable. This is not encyclopedic. Quale 2 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
Delete. This list appears misconceived and confused as to its own content. As far as I know, Bush did not use the words "War on terror" until after 9/11, so everything up to then shouldn't be on the list. The term is too losely defined as it is, and the inclusion of Beslan seems inappropriate too since that was related to a very specific geo-political point; it had little or nothing to do with the actions of the US and her allies against terrorism. -Splash July 2, 2005 16:52 (UTC)
Delete. I think perhaps the point here is that the user wishes to blame these actions on what he/she views as the overreaching nature of GWB's "War on Terror", rather than on those that GWB would call "terrorists." While I understand that there is a chicken/egg issue, I still think List of terrorist incidents is the least confusing name for this category, and is an acceptably NPOV name. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Delete. "War on terror" is it in itself an inherently POV phrase. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
Delete, inherent POV. R adiant _>|< July 3, 2005 08:03 (UTC)
Delete, inherent POV, per others. Xoloz 4 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
Delete. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Delete -- the events are adequately listed elsewhere, and the criteria for inclusion or not on this one are too imprecise. --FrankP 7 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

KEEP -- Larryfooter 9 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Major Road Network

This page serves no appearent purpose that could not be quickly explained in the main TransLink (Vancouver) article. Gwk 2 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

Agree, so merge, no VfD is required for that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
Delete. I disagree on merging it, there's nothing to merge. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 2 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
- How about "TransLink is responsible for maintaining roads under the jurisdiction of the Greater Vancouver Regional District much like the role of Ministry of Transport in most Canadian provinces."? DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  - That's probably inaccurate anyway. Most cities or townships maintain roads in their respective juristictions, at least in Ontario. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 2 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicated information already found in TransLink (Vancouver). --Death phoenix 2 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
Delete. --NormanEinstein July 4, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
Delete. Zhatt 4 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Pat ma

In addition to Geogre's law, this kinda sounds like vanity. The 2 claims to fame are receiving the President's Volunteer Service Award, and "His popular internet blog, www.patma.com, attracts 200 unique readers a day". func(talk) 2 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

I've read his blog. It's pretty interesting for the college crowd.
- The preceding comment is from 70.23.61.67 (talk · contribs) and is this user's only edit. Pburka 2 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, nonnotable. And what's so unique about his readers? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 2 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Middelsprake

Artificial language. Suspected copyvio, but may be vanity by copyright holder. Delete as non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Delete, the guy who made this language has written a bit about it in web forums etc., but as far as I can tell from a web search it is not spoken by any other people. I don't think the language is notable enough. Sietse 3 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
Delete - Fuzheado | Talk 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Calum

WP:WINAD. This is another name definition. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Delete, already transwikied dicdef. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Delete dicdef already transwikid. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
Keep notable name, shared by thousands of people. Grue 5 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] BHCA

WP:WINAD. This is just an acronym spelled out in a single sentence. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Delete, already transwikied dicdef. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Delete yep, already moved, no need to keep. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Caco-

WP:WINAD. This is just a single sentence prefix definition. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Delete, already transwikied dicdef. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Built-in

WP:WINAD. This is just an a single-sentence dicdef. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Delete, already transwikied dicdef. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Delete Agree with above. WIkipedia is not a dictionary. This has no hope of being a real article. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 ^talk 00:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluesnarfing

WP:WINAD. This is just an a single-sentence dicdef. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

Delete, already transwikied dicdef. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
Delete This dicdef is unlikely to ever be a bona fide encyclopedia article. No need to keep it not that it has been transwikied. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Keep, has potential. Paul3144 8 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
Keep, there is definitely a lot more that can be added to this --TylerNi7 20:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Jamshid fazilati

Not notable, probable vanity — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Sietse 3 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Salih Ozkan

Article is a fabrication. If it were true, Salih would be a very notable chess player, but all the chess claims are lies. Claims to have won Corus 2005—actual winner was Peter Leko (see [6]). Claims to have been 1= with Kramnik at Linares 2003—actual results were Vladimir Kramnik and Leko tied for first (see [7]). You probably won't be surprised to discover that Salih Ozkan did not play in any of these supergrandmaster tournaments, that the World Chess Federation FIDE has no recorded rating for Mr Ozkan [8], and that User:Salihoz is responsible for his own article ([9]). Banish to wikihell. Quale 2 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

That would be a delete in my terms. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
Delete, clear and present hoax. It's got a picture that fuzzy that helps to give the game away...-Splash July 2, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
Delete, as hoax. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
Speedy delete to Wiki-Hell as a hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Delete - a vain fabrication. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
Delete because hoax. Good work, Quale. Sietse 3 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
Delete hoax, falsified claims. Falsification not currently criteria for Speedy deletion - maybe it should be. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
Delete (and could probably be speedied since deliberately adding misinformation could arguably be interpreted as "pure vandalism"). I often disagree with Quale when it comes to notability, but I certainly agree with his position of what to do with hoaxes. Nice job with the evidence collection, and good to see someone is watching what goes in to the chess category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 4 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Johnathan Benson

Straightforward vanity/self-promotion — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

'Delete: as above. Anser 2 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk July 2, 2005 10:25 (UTC)
Delete. Not currently notable. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:43 (UTC)
Delete NN. David | Talk 2 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Ronda Eller

Seems like vanity, and doesn't appear to be particularly notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

Delete Google returns nothing relevant, and Amazon doesn't know her name or her book. At the very least then, her claims are unverifiable and the article smells of vanity too. -Splash July 2, 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Delete per Splash. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Verifiable - Google returns link added to edited entry, also http://www.canadianpoetryassoc.com/archives.html (By anon IP 24.235.46.73 (talk · contribs). Only contributions are to the article (the creator thereof), this VfD and List of Canadian poets to add Ronda Eller.-Splash July 4, 2005 22:01 (UTC))
Delete not notable. Cannot find this author's work listed on Amazon. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I am the author - you may see my website at www.angelfire.com/art2/rwicks/home.htm which also includes ISBNs etc; Have edited article to remove items that may have been thought of as vanity. If Canadian Poets list is not for Canadians who are poets then who for? What is the definition of "notable"?

67.71.141.123 17:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)WayneRay As the publisher and I have been publishing notable and new Canadian Poets for 20 years. Amazon is US Based and just because I no l9onger use Amazon does not make a new authors book non-notable" I say take your attitude and shove it.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Jonathan R. Thompson

Doesn't appear to be notable. Probable vanity page. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Delete, NN. --KFP 2 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
Delete - NN ; one Google hit. JoJan 2 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
Delete NN. Stub with no useful info for evaluation. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Wen-Fu Cho

Probably vanity. Doesn't appear to be notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Delete vanity. --KFP 2 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
Delete same. Anser 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
Delete - vanity page JoJan 2 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Looks like an erroneous user page. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 21:53 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Sietse 3 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Shane Young

Non-notable artist self-promotion. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Delete. --KFP 2 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
'Delete. Anser 2 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
Weak delete. According to [10] he's never exhibited outside of Huntsville, Alabama. Note that the Whitney Davidson Gallery doesn't seem to be affiliated with the better known Whitney Gallery. Pburka 2 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
Weak keep - expand the article. This looks like a promising artist who deserves better than a two-liner. JoJan 2 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 16:45 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable. Google hits are sporadic to say the least and the link quoted above would seem to demonstrate his lack of notability so far. Can have a page once he's made his name. -Splash July 2, 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity right now. When he makes a name... --Etacar11 2 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pornstar Pets

Simply advertising for some porn movie. Not encyclopedic information. Dan Granahan 2 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Delete. So it seems. Anser 2 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ keep ~~if it gets cleaned up.~~ It has an IMDB entry, and about 750 google hits. ~~But current content is a copyvio of [11]~~. Pburka 2 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the article. Pburka 2 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite as it's got IMDB hits, otherwise delete as it appears to be advertising material right now. Robchurch 2 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 2 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
Looks keepworthy to me (at least, as it is now). DS July 2, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
Keep interesting article. i hope this movie will come to Germany too.MutterErde 2 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
Keep - not for the porn stars (who cares?) but for the pets! Notable, and oddly encyclopedic. --Mothperson 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Having seen the rewrite, I would now be inclined to keep this article, as it fulfils my personal criteria for "encyclopedic" content. Rob Church 3 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
Keep interesting article. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Either that or someone should start to make a full copy of IMDb into WP. --Nabla 2005-07-04 01:50:42 (UTC)
Keep - As near as I can tell this is not "some porn movie" but a valid documentary examining pet culture and erotica worker culture in America. Worthwhile article and sounds like an interesting film. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Keep. It's a genuine documentary. -- Crevaner 5 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
Keep - From a NPOV perspective, it is no different than any other adult film or other film genre already on Wikipedia.SD6-Agent 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Oxygenated liquid

This stub article attempts and fails to explain the concept of fluid breathing using a false, pseudoscientific analogy. It was apparently created solely to provide a link from The Abyss about the film's use of a fluid-breathing system. I've already directed that article's two links to the existing, robust, accurate article. Since the more generic concept of "oxygenated liquid" could refer to anything right up to pond water for freshwater fish, I doubt this article could be made useful. — Jeff Q (talk) 2 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be a science-fiction concept from a film not popular enough to have every little thing about it made into an entry. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 16:43 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not even from the film at all. The Abyss explicitly describes the Deep Suit as a fluid-breathing system (a real-life concept that is used in more than just this one film, moreover). The closest that it comes to this article's title is in referring to an "oxygenated fluorocarbon emulsion", which is indeed the very correction that Jeffq has made to the article about the film. Uncle G 2005-07-02 22:04:05 (UTC)
Delete fluid breathing does the job fine. This is a poorly written article that has nothing that can be salvaged. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:01 (UTC)
As per Jeffq and Splash, Delete. Uncle G 2005-07-02 22:04:05 (UTC)
Delete, possibly redirect somewhere suitable (e.g. fluid breathing). R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:34 (UTC)
Delete, redirect as per Radiant. Xoloz 4 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
Delete, redirecting to Fluid breathing may not be appropriate, since water with dissolved oxygen (DO)>0 can be called oxygenated. As it is written, it is incoherent and uses an apparently faulty metaphor to try to explain something that I don't think the contributor understands.--WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rother

A musician; half of Neu!. I came across this "article" (single, rather wretched sentence) with a speedy template on it, and couldn't see any reason for it to be speedied; I thus removed the speedy template and stuck a VfD on it instead. This is not a vote. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 08:37 (UTC)

A notable musician. Keep. I've done a little work on the article, so that it very laconically covers his activities till 1980. Much more work can rather easily be done: just follow the links. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 08:37 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. Thanks to Hoary for his work thus far. Capitalistroadster 2 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --Feydey 2 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
Keep. Looked like complete gibberish at first, but it's reasonable now. Enochlau 2 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
Keep - article as it appears now is okay - good work, Hoary. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
Keep and expand on Hoary's good work Terwilliger 7 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodward's building

Merge with Woodwards. There is a problem as the Woodward's building article is well written, yet is redundant compaired to the Woodwards article. The Woodwards article has more information but is badly organized. If I was a better editer, I'd rearragne the Woodwards article, but I believe someone else could do more justice to it. I also have a feeling that the Woodwards article is miss-named as the "s" on the end is posessive as in "Woodward's building". Zhatt 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
- Keep. The articles have been cleaned up and I now realize the distinction between the two. Zhatt 4 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
Strong Keep for both. Woodwards the department store chain was a very important chain of department stores in Western Canada, and is quite notable in itself. The Woodward's building was just one of many of their locations. The Woodwards Building has become a very important political symbol that has absolutely nothing to do with its former role as a a department store. Saving the building has been cited as one of Mayor Larry Campbell's primary achievements in office. Merging the two articles is a very bad idea. Both articles need to be cleaned up a bit and more information should be added but that is not a reason for either deleting or merging the two articles. The building has been the site of a very visible squat, many protests, it has been the subject of literally thousands of hours of City meetings, a documentary movie (or 2), and millions of dollars has been spent trying to save it. None of this has anything to do with its old role as a department store, except that many Vancouverites have sentimental memories about it. -- Webgeer July 1, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
Keep. I disagree that the articles are redundant. Woodward's was an important retailer in Western Canada and its article attempts to document that. Very little is said of the building there. The Woodward's building was the prominent location and Western base for Woodward and as Webgeer stated, now of some political importance as well. Its page tries to document that. I think they are both encyclopedic and expandable. The city of Vancouver's page on the building briefly describes some of the building's importance to the city. I would support a move of the Woodwards page to Woodward's, however. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
Keep, a good article on what seems to be an important landmark. - SimonP July 2, 2005 14:47 (UTC)
Keep - now a good article on building of significance in Vancouver. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep. --NormanEinstein July 7, 2005 01:35 (UTC)
Keep. The building has a life of its own and will continue for many years. Woodward's the company is quite another story (now in the past tense). Sunray July 7, 2005 05:43 (UTC)
Keep. Major Vancouver landmark. maclean25 01:59, 10 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Metal

Apparently this was deleted once already and someone re-created it as Dragon metal. Malathion 2 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Articles Black metal and Dragon metal listed on WP:VFD Apr 27 to May 3 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Two articles linked from the recently deleted Lordhelme article. Both look fictitious. Note, if these are deleted the {{msg:blackmetal}} mediawiki boilerplate text also needs amending. -- Graham :) | Talk 23:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Not only are they linked from Lordhelme, both cite Lordhelme as the only band playing the genre. Useless. - Lucky 6.9 01:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. These are not real genres. Jgm 02:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, what about Tolkien metal, Troll metal, etc.? Are those real? Everyking 02:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The bands cited as playing Tolkien metal exist, as do the bands cited as playing Troll metal. DS 02:55, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  - Yes, it seems so...Lordhelme does not exist, is that what you're implying? Fantasy metal was started by the same contributor as the two I mentioned. Everyking 03:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    - Question. Can someone who knows the heavy metal scene comment on whether Tolkien metal and troll metal are recognized categories? Even if the bands exist, the categories might not. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      - most of these "genres" seem to be derived of black metal and are largely discernable only by lyrical theme. I vote for a lot of these minor genres to be deleted. Spearhead 3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason to delete it, an it might be a fringe genre. Falcon 00:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Categories invented for the promotion of Lordhelme. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I, too, support the deletion of the articles that existed solely for the promotion of Lordhelme.DS 02:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Delete - yet another bollocks metal subgenre Spearhead 3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

End discussion

Delete, not every band is its own music genre. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:36 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Mary Baglole

not notable BillC38 2 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Delete substub on guy in chareg of a branch of a minor political party. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
Delete - Millions of people are defending Christian values, but that does not make them eligible for an encyclopedic entry. ~~
- above mis-signed vote by User:JoJan. --Death phoenix 21:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
Delete non notable. --Death phoenix 21:51, 11 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 already boldly merged and redirected by author to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Reimer

not notable BillC38 2 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Delete failed election candidate. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)
Weak keep. Former deputy leader of a fringe party. Pburka 2 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
Delete, not elected = not notable. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:37 (UTC)
Keep: I strongly contest the notion that just because an individual is not elected, he is not notable. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)
I think I can resolve this dispute. I created this article a while ago, as part of a series of articles on politicians in Manitoba. At the time, I thought that anyone who ran for federal or provincial office was fair game for an article on Wikipedia. We've clarified the rules since then, and the accepted practice now that failed candidates of fringe parties don't deserve their own pages (unless there's something truly unique about them) but can be featured on "list pages". As such, I plan to create a "list page" for CHP candidates, and to compress the Reimer page to a redirect.
I should also clarify that I am not affiliated with the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, nor do I sympathize with its goals in any way, shape or form. I've written similar pieces on fringe candidates from across the political spectrum. CJCurrie 3 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
Delete non notable failed candidate. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
- I should clarify that the page has already been merged to a redirect, and that a clear Wikipedia precedent permits list pages to exist (we had a long discussion about this). The matter is essentially over. CJCurrie 4 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
Redirect as already done by CJCurrie. This vote is more to register my approval of his actions than anything else. --Death phoenix 22:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Gray

not notable

Unsigned nomination by BillC38 (talk · contribs)

Keep leader of a minor political party. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
Keep. National leader of a fringe party. Pburka 2 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
Keep political party leader. - Jersyko talk July 2, 2005 14:49 (UTC)
Keep but wikify. Party leaders (even fringe parties) pass my keep line. Bearcat 3 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
I've copyedited and wikified, and vote keep. Now I go wash my hands with disinfectant. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
Keep. The article has been here for quite some time, and I do not understand why there would suddenly be a reason to delete it, but I notice the nominator is signatured BillC38, which causes me to assume there is intolerance by that individual to the legitimate views of Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray now is the party's most enduring leader, holding the post for nearly ten years, and is probably the most skilled communicator the party has had in leadership, and has frequently made representations to Parliamentary committees and is among those party leaders who are consulted by the Chief Electoral Officer. He has also offered leadership in enunciating some key current CHP policies. GCapp

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fucked Company

The Fucked Company entry is a joke being played on Wikipedia users. A few kiddies from the message board there think it is funny to keep vandalizing Wikipedia entries. Along the way they decided to throw in an entry for the message board they come from. Philip Kaplan who created Fucked Company is a minor notable person in the history of reporting on the Internet, as is his web site Fucked Company. However, the kiddies who keep vandalizing Wikipedia entries and creating Fucked Company entries do so to make a mockery out of Wikipedia. For example, Kaplan's younger brother (Joseph) is disabled. The kiddies keep throwing in references to Philip abusing Joseph, or to Joseph helping establish Fucked Company (neither comment has any basis in reality, they are both deliberate vandalism and inside jokes of the kiddies).

There is no purpose to the page. Why should Wikipedia have an entry about a message board used by a few dozen kiddies? (Above nomination by User:207.237.210.68)

It says it's not just a forum, but a website that became popular as a place for predicting which dot-com would be the next to fold. So I don't know. Everyking 2 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)

There is no original research. It is just a page with bullshit assertions that was created by the kiddies from the message board as a joke. I edited the more inane crap in it just now, but it still should go altogether. (Above comment by User:207.237.210.68)

Keep - this appears to be notable, just about, and the article is more or less NPOV. I am not convinced that this anonymous nomination was made in good faith. Naturenet | Talk 2 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)
- Go back and re-read the historical versions of the article. The reason that you think it is ok now is because I just cleaned the article up. However, the article will probably be vandalized in the next few hours by the kiddies. The clean version I have created through my edits contains no original research. It is just a bunch of assertions, which is not what Wikipedia entries are supposed to be.
  - Above comment by special:contributions/207.237.210.68. Please Log in.
Keep Alexa rank of 3,172. Being a Vandal magnet is not a criterion for deletion, should be reported at WP:VIP. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
Keep, I concur with Dunc. Sietse 2 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
Keep. Fucked Company is absolutely a very significant website, and that is what matters for these purposes. The vandalization is a different story. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 16:41 (UTC)
Keep. Concur with Sietse and Dunc. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Keep. If persistent vandalism is that much of a problem, clean it up to a good version and ask for protection. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 2, 2005 19:38 (UTC)
Keep in present form. Decent article about notable website. Deal with vandalism in the usual ways. Dpbsmith (talk) 2 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
Keep. This in itself is probably an FC troll. Fnord. --Discordian July 5, 2005 20:05 (UTC)
Keep -- notable web site which has led to the webmaster releasing a book on the topic as well. - Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
Keep. FC is definitely a notable site. tregoweth July 9, 2005 03:08 (UTC)
Keep is the Correct Motorcycle. Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah. Sure. (???) AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 9, 2005 04:06 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] K'breel

I don't think this is encyclopaedic. A series of comments by a Slashdot poster, according to the article. If its important, merge it into Slashdot - If its just vanity, delete it as that. Hedley 2 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. --Jyril July 2, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
Not notable enough and also nonsense. Delete. Feydey 2 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
As familiar as TripMasterMonkey may be to regular readers, not notable. Delete. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
Score: 0, redundant. Seriously: Delete because not notable. Sietse 3 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Swehack

Not notable, not in english [12], promotion. Possible speedy. Feydey 2 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't establish notability (not that they have much). bbx 2 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. But not eligible for speedy, either. And the English in the article is fine. Pburka 2 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 2 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Ingenium Digital

Can I just say that the people voting to delete this site, I think you are all disgraceful. Ingenium Digital is obviously a small company planning to grow bigger in the future, everybody has to start somewhere! Summit OS sounds very interesting, and anything other than Microshit has to be good! So before you all go picking out non-important things like typos, just have a think! U all got that?!

Non-notable/unverifiable --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

No Google hits for "Ingenium Digital". Some for "Ingenium" but they don't appear relevant to the article. --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
Delete - let them come back when the 'costomer' wants to buy their software in creation. JoJan 2 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
Delete — "a small software company that is slowly becoming established" is definitely not notable. All the software (or vaporware) they are working on is not released yet. This is probably just advertising. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Keep, I think that whoever did it, seems to have a reason. He/She probably is just a newbie who isn't accustomed to Wikipedia, and probably is feeling very hurt. Anyway, the 'costomer' typo isn't really significant. Give the guy/gal a chance. We don't want to seem too cruel.
- So it's OK to have a possibly made up/non-existent company in Wikipedia? --TheParanoidOne 3 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Delete — "Whilst still in Pre: Pre: Pre: Alpha stages SummitOS allready looks promising." Advertising of monumentally non notable company or possible hoax. carmeld1 6 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Coré

A bar in Brazil. I see no reason to believe that it is/was notable. Sietse 2 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable on any ground. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. 4 votes to keep (noting that J E Bailey forgot to sign his legit vote, and discounting the votes of Jpowell (3 edits) and Thegleek (3 edits)); 2 votes to delete, as the nominator switched votes. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tech Report

~~Appears to be a mixture of author vanity and website advertising; poorly constructed; I propose deletion.~~ Robchurch 2 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

- I altered my opinion after the page was modified - see below for details. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

its still underconstruction so atleast give it a few days. and its the same as several otherwebsite articles such as AnandTech which reads much more like a promotion then this article. while it might seem insignificant to you this article does have use for a specific group. I vote it stays--24.119.127.33 2 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)(this was me --Stranger July 5, 2005 22:44 (UTC))

Delete has an Alexa rank of 14 364 and is difficult to extract from Google owing to many other technical reports. WP:NOT a webdirectory. If the article can be written into something that is not a joke by the end of VfD then I might revise my vote. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Hmm, at least an effort was made to improve the article, but my vote stands. -Splash 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Alright I edited out almost all of the noise now and fixxed things up. does it look better?--Stranger July 2, 2005 18:10 (UTC)
Yes, the page now has an excuse to remain. With that said, I now vote to keep it - I cite The Register and Slashdot as other pages we have. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Weak keep: it's by no means on-par with Slashdot. The page needs some work, but I vote to keep. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
Keep: I agree that it's better than some of the pages for other tech sites on here - IMO, it's better than The Register --Bhtooefr 3 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Not an encyclopedia article; despite the edits, it is still a vanity. Delete unless completely rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 3 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

To all those who dislike the article as it stands can you explain exactly the parts you disagre with and think should either rewriten or removed?--Stranger July 5, 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Keep: It should be tagged with a cleanup and as a web based stub.
Keep: techreport is well known and much of the nonsensical data has been removed. --Thegleek 6 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Keep: The article should stay, perhaps a new category should be created for web based tech journals. --Jpowell 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Watik 853

Band vanity. Not notable. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Weak keep - no Google hits, but may be of some interest in their country. JoJan 2 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm from the Philippines and never heard of them. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. No Google hits, no presence on allmusic.com. Meets none of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:15 (UTC)
Delete: Minor local independent is a euphamism for not notable. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
Delete, I concur with Splash. Sietse 3 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Picks and Strings Music Studio

Small company vanity. Not notable. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

delete - promotional JoJan 2 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily delete.

[edit] Vincent cabochan

It is a vanity page. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Speedy delete - I speedied it, then you recreated it by adding the vfd tag to it... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
- It's not a speedy candidiate. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:39 (UTC)
  - It's not even a complete sentence. This, imo, constitutes a speedy candidate under criteria 1: Very short articles providing little or no context -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
    - Vanity seems more applicable. It would be wrong to delete a vanity by twisting it to meet a speedy criterion. I want it to go through normal VFDSuperm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
Either delete or speedy delete: nonsensical vanity. Sietse 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
Delete - it's barely-coherent transparent vanity. Rob Church 2 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
It's not even a full sentence. Very much a speedy delete candidate as Francs2000 said, in my opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) July 2, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
Speedy delete this is an article 1 speedy, I think. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
Speedy. Patent nonsense. Pburka 2 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
Speedy. IMO there is no reason to VfD clearly nonsensical vanity pages, only articles that resemble proper ones deserve voting.--Jyril July 2, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Pogago

Slang definition; also unverifiable as far as I can see. Sietse 2 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary, esp not for apparently made-up slang. No apparent Google hits, but I can barely make sense of the handful of results it returns. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Delete made-up word.--WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
Delete yep, I made the word up.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Darth Ruin

Fan fiction. Leithp July 2, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

Delete, fanfiction. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --Dcfleck July 2, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
Delete as per above Groeck 3 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
Delete as per abofe. (Echo!)--Kross July 3, 2005 20:28 (UTC)
Delete. JAMD. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
Delete. New rule - made up "Darth" whatevers go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 ^talk July 3, 2005 23:06 (UTC)
Delete fanfic cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Nathan Kittler

Not notable school teacher. Leithp July 2, 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO Kappa 2 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established. Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 07:53 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Reham Fouda

Completely non-notable artist who has one Google hit, on a page that's not even related to art. DS July 2, 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Delete. Nonverifiable. The linked web site has no content. Pburka 2 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
Delete not notable...possible vanity. Pburka is correct about lack of content on the reference website...and there's precious little in the article as well. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
Delete not notable...possible vanity. Pburka is correct about lack of content on the reference website...and there's precious little in the article as well. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:26 (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 MERGE AND REDIRECT

[edit] Coastal Stream

A short-lived experiment in South African soccer. It no longer exists, and can be included in other SA soccer-related articles. The only article linking to it is the related Inland Stream, also up for deletion Greenman 2 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. Be WP:BOLD. No VfD is required to do a redirect. Pburka 2 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
Keep, national soccer divisions are notable, even if short-lived. Kappa 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect: can be done without a VfD. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
Redirect. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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

[edit] Inland Stream

A short-lived experiment in South African soccer. It no longer exists, and can be included in other SA soccer-related articles. The only article linking to it is the related Coastal Stream, also up for deletion Greenman 2 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

Keep, national soccer divisions are notable, even if short-lived. Kappa 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect: can be done without a VfD. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Hackthissite

Delete non-notable website, WP:NOT a webdirectory, Alexa rank of 2 988 386. -Splash July 2, 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable vanity advertising insertion --Wetman 2 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:27 (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.

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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster tourism

Neologism which generates a very low amount of relevant Google hits. Delete. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

Keep; in principle it's a legitimate article. jamesgibbon 2 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
Keep;certainly needs expansion, but I would like to read the finished result, especially if examples or scholarly conclusions about the phenomenom can be incorporated. DavidH July 3, 2005 00:00 (UTC)
Keep added {{expand}} tag, needs definite expansion but should be kept. Jtkiefer July 3, 2005 05:14 (UTC)
Keep. This tourism definitely exists. But this article is very vague. -newkai | talk | contribs July 3, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
Keep. This is a real problem in disaster relief. This has been known to happen in the Southern U.S. with some people driving in right after a hurricane to see the aftermath.--Pharos 4 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
- Comment: Most google hits seem to be about the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, especially in India, Sri Lanka and Thailand.--Pharos 4 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barret Traditional Middle School

Non-notable --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Keep, schools are notable. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 2 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly reasonable stub. Pburka 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
Delete. 68.97.208.123 2 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Keep We should have articles about all schools. They are a good starting point for new contributors; deleting them is a good way to frighten potentially valuable contributors away. CalJW 2 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we can not ever expect to have articles on every school, not even on a very little percentage of them, nor I believe it is of any use. They are not good starting points, allowing them we are telling those young guys that this is not a serious encyclopedia, nad that they can do whatever they want to. I bet that keeping them frightens many contributers, already established as valuable. --Nabla 2005-07-04 16:25:59 (UTC)
  - Of course we can, Wikipedia is only just getting started. This concept that no one will contribute to heavyweight articles because there are also lots of minor articles is just plain silly. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
    - I did not said that no one would contribute on the major articles, I said I believe some would stop doing that. Also I disagreed with you without needing to qualify your reasoning as silly.-Nabla 2005-07-07 16:45:57 (UTC)
Keep or merge into a school district page — Just who's going to use this encyclopedia anyway? Students??? Gasp, shock. :) — RJH 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools or you just might "extinguish the creative mind". ;-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
Strong delete. Verifiability and NPOV does not indicate importance or Notability!!! Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
- I would ask you what is such a "bloody stupid thing to say"? [13] DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
  - Say something along the lines of "this article on a middle school is verifiable and NPOV?, therefore it is important", see logical fallacy. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
- Non-verifiable and POV are deletion critera. Importance and Notability are not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you should read other VfD's then. Many bands, individual people, and companies are deleted purely by reason of lack of notability/importance. Also, by the results of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Race and intelligence debate and others, POV is not a deletion criterion; if it were, then our articles on controversial subjects would all be gone. --Idont Havaname 7 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
    - comment. The distinction is between articles where notability is not yet established and articles where it could not possibly be established. The lengthy debate about school articles in general showed that many people feel that schools have intrinsic notability. If nothing much has been said, it is preferred that they remain merged with their locale, but such preference does not amount to an established criteria for deletion. You are correct about POV. That is an editing issue, not a reason to delete. Dystopos 7 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
Keep, notability indicated (I don't require much, but I do require something). Gazpacho 3 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
keep. Personal attacks are not permitted on WP. Verifiable NPOV stubs are. Dystopos 3 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I'm not sure that calling itself a "magnet school" is actually so NPOV. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
- I think that magnet schools are usually designated as such by the school board. I could be wrong, though. Pburka 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
- Source for magnet school designation is the school board. DoubleBlue (Talk) 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Keep: See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
Keep. This one is a classic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
Keep. Ladle. —RaD Man (talk) 3 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
Delete. There is a section on education on Louisville,_Kentucky#Education that doesn't even mention it, or directs to it in any other way. Why? Because it is of no importance whatsoever, I guess. --Nabla 2005-07-04 02:02:12 (UTC)
Keep, mildly educational. 24 @ 4 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
Keep. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
Delete, or merge with Jefferson County Public Schools at best, nothing notable or newsworthy to be found here. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
Keep, wikipedia is not a book. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 6, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Woohookitty 05:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Either Or Argument

Page exists to push the POV of the creator, who has been asked not to include this information in the homosexuality article. As the creator said when creating the page, "This was placed as a serparate article because homophiles on the homosexuality page wanted that page to be strictly dedicated to promotion of the behavior, not logical repudiation." A discussion has ensued on the talk page and an edit war appears to be in place about whether or not this page is NPOV. Also the external link is someone's personal website, not a scientific journal or anything: "[Homosexual] existence is an embarrassing anomaly for Darwinism." If this isn't POV I'd like to know what is... Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

I think the page could contain some good information, if both sides of view are presented. However, it is clear that the author is just trying to push an agenda, as judged not only by his actions in this article, but his history of actions in others. Furthermore, he has repeatedly removed the NPOV disclaimer, and made a statement to the effect of "I will allow the NPOV disclaimer if...". It's clear he's using the article to push an agenda, as shown not only by his actions, but by the fact that he wishes greatly to retain ownership of the page. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Is it possible that a logical argument can exist without proper documentation on the internet? If so, why can't Wikipedia be a trailblazer and include information presented as unbiased iteration of that logical argument? I have nothing wrong with putting more information in the article, such as, "opponents belive..." but there are certain editors who want to remove the knowledge altogether, which, to use their own words, "push[s] the POV of the creator." (Unsigned comment by Intellectualprop2002 (talk · contribs), the article's creator shortly before he left this message on my talk page -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:08 (UTC))
- Would an RfC be a good idea? Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
  - I think it would, though I can't start it as I'm leaving the country within hours and have too much to do to get too involved at this stage... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
  - I think an RfC would be a good idea in this case. || Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:20 (UTC)
    - For the article or user? I was referring to the user, though I suppose the article could also go through it. Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
      - I was thinking article, but perhaps both user and article are in order. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
        
        Purely for the record: "Opponents believe..." is always a bad idea. If there are specific opponents who have opposing beliefs, they should be explicitely referenced, not given the generic title "opponents", and references should be added showing where they state these beliefs. If there aren't specific opponents whose opposing beliefs are documented, then these purported opponents and their purported beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia article. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
The page could contain some good information, if both sides of view are presented. But I fear that while Intellectualprop2002 is around, that isn't going to happen. Delete for now, and if someone can create a better article later, then so be it. Sonic Mew July 2, 2005 19:01 (UTC)
- I concur. Given the fact that Intellectualprop2002 continually removed the NPOV notice, it's unlikely that he will "allow" any edits to "his creation." Although, I still feel as though a delete is too harsh; I really think the article is meritous, as long as edits for the opposing view are retained. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Definitely seems to be an agenda behind this, which makes me very skeptical about the veracity of the cite. Delete, unless the specific part of Ridley's Genome book that refers to the "either/or argument" is quoted or further explained; otherwise, I have to assume this is original research. Dcarrano July 2, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
If multiple references can be added that show where this argument is used in academic fields, then keep. Otherwise, delete. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
Strong delete. Even if this turns out to be a legitimate topic, it can and should be discussed in human sexuality or asexuality, and not under this meaninglessly mushy title. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
Delete this user is creating MULTIPLE articles on ONE author's views of homosexuality. See Reduced Gene Pool Argument and vote as well. And also see Homosexuality's section on changeable and permanent and talk page discussion to see how much of a fringe minority this view is. NARTH being 1000 psychologsit while APA, China, EU, representing hundreds of thousands contradicting their view. 67.41.236.211 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
Delete as a hopelessly POV fork of Homosexuality. --FCYTravis 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Delete. Sole source does not appear to support the article. Therefore I'd call if original research. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Delete Original Research. Tobycat 3 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
Delete an obvious POV fork, based on the early edit summaries in the history. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
Delete original research, POV fork --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 3 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Delete either a hoax or POV pushing or both. Ref to Matt Ridley seems like a way of warding off deletion, not a real ref. David | Talk 3 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
Strong Keep "Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia--indeed the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth." from Wikipedia. If everyone can agree on that statement, the idea is to include all rational information in this encyclopedia, NOT to exclude it because it goes against what some people believe. We can state that there IS a school of thought that agrees with this argument, however small and however source-less it is. To exclude it from Wikipedia, despite the amount of sources, would be counter to the goal of Wikipedia. To my knowledge, there is no shortage of storage space for the website, and we do not need to start pruning ideas that aren't known by EVERYONE. After all, what knowledge truly is known by everyone?Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
Francs2000 was the one who put this article up for deletion because it, "exists to push the POV of the creator." The deletion of this article, however would, in turn be pushing the POV of the deleter, Francs2000. After some research, it appears that Francs2000's sole purpose in his Wikipedia endeavor is to promote homosexuality, and reject ideas that are contrary to what he believes. Every article of his creation that I looked at (about 15) involve actors in a pro-gay television show, homosexual police commanders, types of sexual procedures (cottaging), and even a tremendously insignificant thing such as a "glory hole." A glory hole, evidently, is a device mostly used by homosexual men to engage in sex while maintaining their anonymity Francs2000 began that article, yet he wishes to delete an article describing a logical argument contradicting the genetic probability of homosexuality. It's easy to see what's going on here. This person wants to censor any arguments that do not coincide with his agenda. Wikipedians must realize this and defeat this close-minded behavior. It can lead only to mental prison. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Either_Or_Argument"
- Non sequitur. Glory hole really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
  - Perhaps my clarification changes your mind on the non sequitur statement.
    - Not really. If you have a problem with Glory hole, take it up on the Glory hole talk page, not here. Simply listing its existence, or the alleged "agenda" of one of its editors, does not justify the existence of Either Or Argument. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:50 (UTC)
      - My goal was to admonish the voters on this article that point of view is relative the person who is reading it. The initial proposal for deletion was, in itself, "pushing a POV," which undermines the argument against the article's existence. It's a very challenging proposition, but if you thikn about it for a moment, I trust you will come to the same conclusion. Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
        
        You act as though an NPOV notice is something novel and new on Wikipedia, and we can't possibly understand its implications because we're treading in new waters. This is not the case. NPOV disputes have come up before, and the community is settling them in the prescribed manner. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 20:23 (U
      - It's new to me, that's why I admittedly overreacted, initially. However, your initial requests for corrections to produce a neutral article were followed and still you maintained a NPOV warning. For the amount of emotion involved in this issue, it's unlikely that any attempt to document these ideas will be met open minds. The first instinct will be to delete, delete, delete. That is a shame and is the reason why google will remain a better encyclopedia than wikipedia. There is NO censorship on search engines.

Google is a search engine, and since when has Wikipedia and Google been competing? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Since many wikipedians have started using a google search to determine if certain articles are legitimate. Google's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it unversally accessible and useful." That says encyclpedia to me, though, I may have been too poetic for your strictly literal mind, UkPaolo. 66.74.196.5 3 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

But Google isn't an encyclopedia at all. A collection of information != an encyclopedia. Google makes no attempt to verify its information, and it lists plenty of things, such as personal webpages and corporate webpages, that are not encyclopedic. It also makes no attempt to keep points of view out of its information. Finally, the information contained in Google is not written to nearly the same standards as an encyclopedia. Google might attempt to organize information, but not all information belongs in an encyclopedia. A perfect example is the About page on my personal website, which is catalogued by Google, but is hardly something that should be placed in an encyclopedia. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 23:35 (UTC)

You will learn (probably later than sooner) that all information is a point of view. You cannot get away from bias in information. The best one can hope for is a summary of all the points of view out there. Sure, Google isn't an encyclopedia, by definition, but why do wikipedians use it as a source to legitimize articles? Could it be because it is the closest thing to a summary of all knowledge out there? Again, that says 'encyclopedia' to me, but that's just semantics getting in the way of truth finding. 66.74.196.5 4 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

All information may be point-of-view, but no encyclopedia (including this one) would ever wish to incorporate the idiosyncratic views of every person. You hold this theory, and doubtless find its logic compelling. We have no evidence that anyone else does. Surely, other people do support various anti-gay "theories," might have formed similar notions, and might agree with you -- even they, though, probably couldn't claim to have heard of this specific "Either-Or" theory prior to meeting you. Evidence suggests this particular formulation is yours alone; and, as such, it doesn't belong here. Xoloz 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any of the above articles that you have listed, please bring this up on their respective talk pages: I do not own any of those articles, they are products of the community. If you have a problem with any of my actions please bring this up with me directly (without insulting me or comparing me to a "Nazi book-burner" to reference the last message you left for me) and if you feel you are getting nowhere talking to me you are more than welcome to bring it up in another forum for discussion. Please bear in mind that this is not an appropriate forum for the discussion of someone's actions outside anything in relation to the article being discussed. -- Francs2000 | Talk

22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - original research. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
Delete, POV pushing, at least borderline original research - Skysmith 4 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOR and POV pushing. Axon 4 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
Delete - obvious POV pushing article. --Dejan Čabrilo 5 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly conceived original research. For all intellectualprop2002's attempted eloquence in defending it, the article is itself so fuzzily worded that I'm not even quite sure what the "either or" theory is. carmeld1 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Summary This is a farce. Justice is being flogged on this website. A band of wikipedians (most of which constantly contribute to pro-gay articles with their POV), yet won't allow a separate article explaining a logical theory in a neutral tone contesting the natural (as opposed to cultural) existence of their beloved behavior. It appears that I have no chance in opening minds on this subject, but I am better for it, while this website and the little band of deleters above IS WORSE OFF for it. They will continue to wallow in their ignorant misery, while the rest of us continue to search for the truth, not a medical "mainstream", google-proved, politically correct shade of the truth. Good luck in prison, little book burners. Intellectualprop2002 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Mario poljak

Vanity page. Leithp July 2, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Delete ...and by making us all notice it and vote on it, this prank has succeeded in its aim. --Wetman 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
Speedy -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
Speedy - impossible to understand and clearly a new user test. -Splash July 2, 2005 19:48 (UTC)
Speedy. Nonsense page.--Jyril July 2, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
Speedy. Well, it is possible to understand if you happen to know the language, but it's still nonsense... GregorB July 2, 2005 20:43 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Dragon clan

Not notable and in Croatian. I'm not sure if this fits the speedy criteria. Leithp July 2, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. GregorB July 2, 2005 20:46 (UTC)
Comment: Since I can't understand anything it says, I can't vote one way or another (it may just need a "Needs Translation" mark). Can anyone tell me what it's about? -- Cabhan 2 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
- Taking a random guess, I'd say it's band related. NOTE: I do not read crotian. However, the structure, name, and inclusion of a vauge date point me in that direction. Delete. humblefool ® 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Speedy, if possible: it's a gaming clan, and article not in English. If speedy is not possible, then Delete. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Stephanie Cleghorn

Delete non-notable actress, "who likes cute boys". Google returns 5 hits.-Splash July 2, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Speedy delete, prank. Feydey 2 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Agreed, Speedy delete. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

Delete — assistant stage manager for a local family theater.[14] Doesn't appear at all notable yet. — RJH

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Kardos Empire/Kingdom, Kardos Kingdom, Principality of Sodrak

Just another nn micronation. Delete JeremyA 2 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

You gotta love that flag, could they not come up with anything more original? Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
I've added a duplicate of this page (Kardos Kingdom) to the page, and I also vote for DELETION. -- Cabhan 2 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
Dudtz-Keep both pages. does it bother you that I want a nation
"ImperialSocialistConstitutional Monarchy" in Pennsylvania? This article should have a {{nonsense}} template inserted. ‡ Jarlaxle July 2, 2005 22:26 (UTC)
Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
- Actually we used sense when we wrote up the constitution. quit being like Geoge W Bush —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudtz (talk • contribs) 2 July, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
Peter Panda-KEEP theres nothing wrong with these pages. Is it really bothering you people that much
- Comment. User only has two edits - that is, only on this vfd. Probable sockpuppet. Oh, see What Wikipedia is not. -- Natalinasmpf 2 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
BJAODN. For obvious reasons as fictional, unrecognised countries. -- Natalinasmpf 2 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
Delete. Go outside, it's nice out. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Delete all. Vanity micronationcruft. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 3, 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Delete Ditto User:Android79. If Kardos ever comes up with something tangeable, perhaps I'll eat my hat L-Bit 3 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
No sources cited. No evidence at all that any such things exist. Unverifiable. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 2005-07-03 03:57:24 (UTC)
Delete, just delete... Cyclone49 3 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
I had similar fantasies when I was ten or so (but I think my spelling was better). Delete the lot. -- Hoary July 3, 2005 06:42 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 3, 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Dudtz-I assume you feel the same way about the Def-facto independent country of Chechnya,prehaps you should delate it if that is your stance on nations of these types. I am of noble blood I did not create this nation by my self We have atlest 33 members I amphibious landing craft A newspaper company atleast 33 vehicles more than 15 properties. Here a link you might find useful http://nobility.artsakhworld.com/Atabekian_Kings_List_Eng.html Look under The Haykazuni dynasty

Clarification: Unnotable, fails Google test ("Kardos Kingdom" results in 0 results, "Jeff Kardos" results in 3, none of which relating to said Kingdom). As far as your Chechnya example, Chechnya is quite notable. Yours is not. You are the weakest link, goodbye. -- Cabhan 3 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

Dudtz:well try this one http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=fulton http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=turnbaugh and besides there is no weakest link becuse it is a steel cable covered in sythetic diamond film with a reflective coating

Comment. You want to use your "noble blood" to cheat your way into an encylopedia? Well be warned, ye elitist aristocratic scum! I could careless about your bloodline, because perhaps you never heard of egalitarianism and meritocracy have you? As for diamond, it's not particularly tensile: it may be hard, but spider silk is probably more flexible and stronger than diamond, as well. Just not particularly hard. Vehicles? Are those something like metro trains, or if I'm guessing correctly, they are just bourgeois elements of hoarding and inefficiency. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

I didn't plan to "cheat"

Constitutional monarchies also have merit systems, idiot.

Yes, but the fact is, you assert your authority based on your nobility, and that disqualifies your so called "nation" as a meritocracy. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, so you have a family crest. I don't care, many people have such crests. The fact is, your little Kardos Kingdom is a farce and there is no reference to it anywhere. It is inherently unnotable, and therefore, has no place in Wikipedia. -- Cabhan 3 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Dudtz:thats why I am trying to create a referance here how many people do you know have them

You really should see Wikipedia:No original research. Your claims has to be verified. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a reference (or "referance"), Dudtz; it would just be pointless publicity for your little fantasy, of no interest to anybody aside from you and perhaps a handful of your chums.Of course, you are entitled to argue against this view here; but if you do so, please sign your comments. This is easy: just hit the ~ key four times in a row. Thank you. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Delete all. non notable micronation cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
Delete - Micronation with a capital "somewhere" inside a subdivision of a large nation. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
Delete - another micronation. Well, I am going to miss that flag!! Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:20 (UTC)
This is plainly vanity nonsense. Speedy. -Hmib 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Dudtz:my aurtority is given to me by the people
- Dudtz, old bean, you'll look more authoritative when you manage to get the spelling of "authority" right. Incidentally, is the little chore (considerately explained above) of signing and dating messages still beyond you? -- Hoary July 8, 2005 06:23 (UTC)
DELETE! Why is this still here? -Hmib 8 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)
Dudtz-Why are you still here? 8 july 2005 17:55

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dwang

WP:WINAD. A dicdef and I see no potential for growth. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Keep, more than a dicdef. Could be expanded to give methods of construction, techniques used for installation, history of design etc. Kappa 2 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
- Not that I didn't expect your vote, but aren't we voting on what it is now, not what you thnk it might become? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
  - Then why did you mention you see no potential for expansion? Anyway there is need for expansion here, but the current article provides a good start. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
    - Well, I didn't, and I'm still not sure I do, but I may be wrong. But my question was whether one is supposed to vote based on the article's content, or based on the potential of the article's title? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
      - The criteria for deletion generally point to the question of whether an article on the topic in question is inherently unencyclopedic, irrespective of content. A vanity page, for example, may never be encyclopedic even if the author manages to include 20 page of information about every detail of his life. A one-line article on a federal appellate judge (of which we have had a few), on the other hand, should clearly be kept because the topic is notable, and there is indeed potential for expansion. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
Delete unless significantly expanded before VFD ends. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
Delete Should be moved to Wiktionary, as I believe as has already been done. The notion that this expanded and made to suit Wikipedia is implausible. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to keep, 2 to merge, 1 to delete. A merge with Pillow might be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch wife

WP:WINAD. A dicdef with no potential for growth. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Keep, encyclopedic. Could be expanded to discuss the history, construction, cultural associations etc. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
- I don't understand at all. You've basically voted "keep" on all of these because it could be expanded. Do we keep unencyclopedic vanity and hoaxes because they have the same name as something notable, and therefore could be fixed? No. So why would we keep dicdefs because they could be expanded? If you are going to rewrite them yourself, I'll reconsider my vote. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
  - We shouldn't delete short, valid articles about topics wikipedia needs to cover, whether they are villages or everyday objects. Vanity articles and hoaxes do not fit that description. This article is already encyclopedic and is a useful start to a longer article, which should ideally be written by someone more knowledgable than myself. Kappa 3 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
    - The article in its current form is by no means encyclopedic. Numbered, two sentence fragments, short and choppy. Dicdef. Also, I do not believe the notion of adding "history" and "construction" information is valid either. Just because you can find information, doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
      - Great, so I'll never be able to look up the history or constructions of dutch wives anywhere. Thanks for keeping me and everyone else in ignorance. Kappa 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
Merge to Pillow, it's a kind of pillow, yes? This is precisely what our official Mergist Logo represents. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Merge, as per the above vote. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Grue 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

I'm a newbie, and the original author of the article. If I'd known that Wiktionary existed, I would have entered it there instead. Since it has already been moved there, it should be deleted.

Keep, I think it's a valid topic. Everyking 8 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. However, the article has already been transwikied, which makes the vote moot. Woohookitty 06:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comprador

WP:WINAD. A short dicdef with no potential for growth. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Keep, could be expanded to discuss the history and cultural associations of compradors. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
Merge to Intermediary. Expansion is easier if in context. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Keep. and expand. Has a specific Asian meeting. Our article on the Indian rebellion of 1857 cites fears of the rise of a new comprador class amongst the traditional Indian aristocracy as one of the root causes. It also has relevance to Hong Kong. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef and Trans'd. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
Delete foreign dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
Keep also has technical sense in sociology which would merit an essay.--JohnKozak

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 redirect to Glossary of nautical terms. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coaming

WP:WINAD. A single-sentence dicdef. I see no potential for growth, and it's already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Keep, notable feature of a ship. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
Redirect to Glossary of nautical terms. The term is already there. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 21:02 (UTC)
Redirect — this nautical term already covered on Ship page. — RJH 2 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
Redirect- not to Ship, but to Glossary of nautical terms. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Redirect per Joy Stovall and Alex12 3. Aecis 4 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge/Redirect. Woohookitty 08:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chickenshit

WP:WINAD. A short dicdef. I see no potential for growth, and it's already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Merge/redir to chicken. If you dare :) R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:42 (UTC)
Delete CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
Merge/redir to shit would probably be more... appropriate. -- BD2412 ^talk July 3, 2005 04:51 (UTC)
Delete slang term not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to shit, as per BD2412. Xoloz 4 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/Redirect to symptom. Woohookitty 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal symptom

WP:WINAD. A single-sentence dicdef that appers to be copyvio as well. (Most dicdefs don't "reference" a dicdef unless they're copied from it, though I don't have the dictionary to check). It's already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Symptom. — RJH 2 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
- Concur. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Symptom. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/Redirect. to bed sheet.Woohookitty 08:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpane

WP:WINAD. A two sentence dicdef without potential. Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Bed sheet. But not really a useful page, so a delete wouldn't ruin my day. :) — RJH 2 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
- Agreed, "notable" in a sense of the word, but doesn't need a separate page. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwikied already. Will delete. Woohookitty 08:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial off-the-shelf

WP:WINAD. A short dicdef with little potential. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Off the shelf. I agree there's probably not a lot of potential for the COTS term itself, other than possibly a discussion of the economic benefits of COTS versus in-house builds. Thanks. — RJH 2 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
Keep (or Merge/Redirect as above) There are 10+ proper articles that link to this or COTS. --Pengo 6 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something Awful

Note: This VfD overwrote a previous VfD on the same subject. --cesarb 2 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --cesarb 2 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Keep. Something Awful is, whether the complainant likes it or not, a major player in the development of Internet culture and a major player in the development of multiple Internet phenomena. And there are a lot more Johnny-Come-Lately sites that aren't being targeted with VfDs. Certainly it deserves to be kept as much as any other site. All this VfD-ing sure seems like some personal beef to me. There oughta be a way to stop pages from being harassed like this. --69.209.225.187 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the VFD is closed. Keeps won, of course.--DooM Drat 22:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I just got to the page because I wanted to see exactly what SA has contributed to Internet culture. It is a useful and interesting topic. frecklefaerie 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
Keep. As one of the internet's most well-known humor pages, it's quite noteworthy. Always room for improvement, though. 65.0.28.200 8 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)
Keep. Please, stop the trolling, this is a perfectly valid entry. Joel de Bunchastu 11:45, June 23, 2005
Delete Website vanity. Closed Community Advertisement Unsigned vote from 24.69.52.124 (talk · contribs)
- User has three edits. Punkmorten 5 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
Delete Website vanity. unsigned vote from 213.158.254.154 (talk · contribs)
- User has two edits, and it seems like he was the one who inserted the VfD.
Keep -- a valid encyclopedic entry for a very unique online community. --Sonance 22:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's one of the biggest humor websites out there, it certainly deserves its own page. Stilgar135 01:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- a site rather significant in the history of the Internet, and unique enough in its content and scope to be a valid entry. This isn't some 14 year old kid on a Geocities page making fart jokes and looking for free traffic. docSachiel 01:04, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)
Keep Something Awful is a unique website , with thousands of members and many years on the internet. It is unique and popular enough to validate this entry.
Keep WP has numerous other articles on different websites (Slate.com, Fark.com, Slashdot.org, Plastic.com, even zombo.com). There's no reason not to. --Uhlek 14:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The site is important enough that this article on it is linked to by our own article Web traffic, for good reason. Bill 17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Don't see any reason not to. Wereon 18:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Something Awful is one of the biggest humor websites on the internet, with a unique community and it deserves its own Wikipedia entry.

Keep Culturally significant, in the same category as FARK for being a major force behind internet trends. Also - Wikipedia has no size limit. That's one of the points of the entire project, to make an encyclopedia that doesn't have to be condensed into a hardback with a deadline. Kade 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - and I'm a deletionist. Pretty much defines the "notable Web forum" category. --FCYTravis 04:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Culturally significant, although the Terrible Secret of Space section looks much more encyclopedic than the rest. (Funny thing, I seem to remember it having much more content last time I looked?) MrVacBob 05:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Notable and significant. Linked to from several articles. Thatdog 19:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - One of the most important sites on the internet. Moreso than other sites like deviantART that have pages here. Dstopping 05:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - It has a definite online presence. I don't think it's vanity at all. In fact, I have a hard time explaining what SA is to certain people, so I used to point them to this wikipedia article. Keep for sure. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

Keep - The article helped me. That's the point, right? ROYGBIV 04:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I was glad to find this info tiggs000 00:26, Jun 28, 2005
Keep - The site is a significant part of Internet culture with its very busy forum, and is a regular generator of humourous content shown on its main page. Nicknicknickandnick 6 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
Keep SA is unique enough and is an important enough part of Internet culture to warrant inclusion. unsigned comment from 210.86.52.196 (talk · contribs)
Keep - Delete request from an unsigned otherwise non-contributor, this is a troll FiddyCent 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
Keep This article is well written and pertains to an important aspect of internet culture. There is bo valid reason why it should be deleted. unsigned comment from 209.195.100.104 (talk · contribs)
Keep Site has enough popularity to have an article. Bushytails 30 June 2005 05:49 (UTC)
Keep A website with a large audience and hits. If this is deleted, then Slashdot has to be deleted too. Peter McGinley 30 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)
Keep I think the keep's have fairly outweighed the delete's now. How much of a margin is really necessary before these delete entries can get purged? unsigned vote from 4.246.212.139 (talk · contribs)

OK I tried to provide users for all the unsigned votes in this discussion but it proved rather a difficult task. Let's just say consensus is to keep, seeing as the only two delete votes were from users without accounts... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Keep - if we have a speedy delete, why can't we have a speedy keep? --Mothperson 2 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
- We have. See the guide. --cesarb 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
Oh. Speedy keep, then -- --Mothperson 2 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
- We actually don't. We have the vote, but not the mechanism (it was shot down several times because it's too easily abusable). Five days isn't that long really. Keep. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  - Yes, but when all votes are speedy keeps and the nomination has obviously been made in bad faith, some administrators close the debate prematurely. It's rare, but happens. --cesarb 2 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
    - Just plain Keep, then, and all my non-existent sock puppets say they vote the same way, too --Mothperson 2 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
Stong keep Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Notable website. Yeah, I know there's no mechanism for that, but I'm voting on principle here. This discussion ought to be closed early. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 3, 2005 00:28 (UTC)
Speedy keep, notable website, suspect that it's a bogus listing. (I suggest withdrawing the listing too, given how many keep votes there are.) --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Can't we finish this up now? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
Keep. Notable website. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 4 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
Keep. Content-rich source of information on an influential website.--Vox 4 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
Keep. Historically significant, in terms of shaping internet trends.--Jesse 4 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, this is notable. Punkmorten 5 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
Keep. Don't know why it was put up for deletion in the first place. It belongs (and I think that as a TotalFarker *grin*) --GaidinBDJ July 5, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. --BradBeattie 5 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
Keedy Speep. --Ashibaka (tock) 6 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
Keep. Very significant. It's been nearly two weeks. I think the Keeps have it, somehow.--DooM Drat July 6, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
Keep -- notable website. - Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Keep. In case anyone still cares about voting. Avertist July 6, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Cordell Walker 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
Weak keep. Hell, I'm an SA Goon, but does this belong in an encyclopedia? — Dan Johnson ^T_C July 7, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
Keep, revise. This is not very encyclopedic and perhaps should be edited to have better information. — BAILOPAN 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Keep - In before it closes! Sorry. Amerika 8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
Keep - Why would anyone nominate this for deletion?! Redwolf24 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
Keep - Vanity Article? SA gets to many viewers for something like that! T ConX

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Raymond Wu

Vanity, non-notable. Jyril July 2, 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Delete - make it go away. my head hurts. ow. --FCYTravis 2 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
Delete Vanity
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
Delete "Expect to hear from him soon" strikes me as an blatant admission of non-notability. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
Delete take it away!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Edward Helvenston

Surely a nuclear engineering student is notable? Vanity page. Jyril July 2, 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Delete but in putting his name before us all for voting, this insertion has completely served its purpose. Voting encourages more of the same. --Wetman 2 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
- Indeed, but unfortunately Speedy deletion policy does not allow deleting vanity pages on sight.--Jyril July 2, 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  - Please read User:Uncle G/Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Unsourced biographies for why. This article would qualify under that hypothetical criterion, notice. Uncle G 2005-07-03 04:10:28 (UTC)
This 21-year-old student does not meet the WP:BIO criteria. The article cites no sources and also appears to attack his ex-girlfriend. Delete. Uncle G 2005-07-03 04:10:28 (UTC)
Delete "Captain Ahab" stuff sounds like nonsense or unverifiable student gossip. Either way, say goodbye. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

[edit] Burnt Coat Branch

Non-notable/Hard to verify --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

The only Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. The stream name is not given so that makes it harder to verify. The story behind name seems dubious. --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

Delete.Bluemoose 8 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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

[edit] Bandwidth skimming

Delete and Merge with Streaming media Billhpike July 2, 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Concur with above. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a duplication of the previously deleted Scotchguard Powered Bong. --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

[edit] Scotchgard bong

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Scotchguard Powered Bong. This is a duplicate and should be deleted also. Rangek July 2, 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Speedy delete, as article is duplicate of article that was already deleted through VfD. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

[edit] Peoples Republic of Mosquito

Presumably this is meant to be a joke? Deb 2 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Alexi Strelnikov:no joke

we will uprise against the capitalists

"Workers In a Worker's State!" "Workers of the World Unite!"

Speedy Delete as nonsense. --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peckermullet

Invented word, 1 Google hit by author of word Samw 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
Delete- A jolly good read if you're looking for a laugh, but still nn. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep article, but rewrite/expand to avoid copyvio concerns. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ya Libnan

It's a promotional article about a web site, with unrelevant categories and interwiki links 500LL July 2, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Keep. The text was copied from the website, though possibly by the copyright owner (see the talk page). I started a little stub since I think this website should have its article. Guaka 2 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
- Delete content if it's a copy from the website (have to be careful with copyvios; do not keep unless you're certain that it was the owner AND he wanted to GFDL it). Keep subject, per WP:CSB. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:50 (UTC)
Keep. Similar wikis exist for other media websites, there is no reason why it should be different for this one. Particularly since the number of English media outlets on Lebanon is limited, and the site provides relevant info.
Strong keep. Just need to watch out for copyvio, as stated, and expand. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
Delete possible copyvio. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
Strong keep The owner clearly stated that it is OK to post the information, and therefore is not a copyright violation. The wiki needs to be expanded.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Redirect. into the Venus Williams article. Woohookitty 08:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Watts

Is he really notable? Deb 2 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Delete. No, not notable. The incident at Wimbledon is notable, but it doesn't warrant an article on the judges involved. This article simply duplicates info already in Venus Williams where it belongs, so no need to merge. Quale 2 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)
In that case, Redirect Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Redirect, as per above. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
Comment - If this is kept, can it be edited to show that Natasha Zvereva did not make an obscene gesture to the Williams sisters as initally thought, but to the crowd. Details here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wimbledon2000/825136.stm Candice 3 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wimbledon2000/824790.stm

If you look at the times given on the articles, that second article was a report from earlier in the day than the one I posted. The one I posted was after the video evidence had been viewed. Candice 5 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People Running About

Incomprehensible, not even the name of the game is mentioned. If the game has a page of its own, add information (if any) there.

Note: User:Setokaiba added a vfd to "People Running About" on June 1st, but forgot about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Austrian 2 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Delete gamescruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries, this card is not important nor made any impact regarding any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo News Network

Non-notable. From the article: "It is a very new organization, and they haven't yet release their first issue." (my emphasis). --TheParanoidOne 2 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)

Delete until they gain some notability. Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 07:46 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good and Bad RP

Another new, non-notable, internet RPG. Not encyclopaedic. Hedley 2 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Delete. I second that. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
I am asking now it as a favor. PLEASE delete it. - Pennington77
Speedy, as Pennington77 (talk · contribs) is the original author and has requested that it be deleted. Pburka 3 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
Delete inherently POV. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saaya Irie

Was added to CSD by Mipadi, but a Google search brings up about 6,000 results for her name. Thought it'd be better to bring it here to establish consensus on its presence. No vote. Hedley 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Keep. I did a brief bit of research, and the entry seems legitimate. I've rewritten it to include the information I found; seems to be a legit article. – Mipadi July 2, 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Keep. Also appears legit to me, and if we have other models listed, we should keep her too to be fair.--Azathar 6 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Keep. Appears legit to me. I've heard of here several times, suprised Wikipedia didn't have an article about her earlier.-- 8 July 2005 3:38 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhill YMCA

Not notable. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC) (older version is a lot more indicative of spam. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)

Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
Delete as nn. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
Delete — I think local activity centers probably fall well below the bar. Mostly fluff. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wario the Quario

SuperDude115 made this nomination on 2005-06-24, but missed the final step in the process. I've completed the nomination. It is worth noting the difference between now and February 2005, and what an improvement has been made here. Uncle G 2005-07-02 23:09:13 (UTC)

This is another iteration of the Wario the Quario article. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wario the Quario to find out why Wikipedia original WtQ article got deleted, the same reason will probably apply on this iteration too!

Delete. 0 google hits when -wikipedia is added. --SuperDude 07:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As of UncleG's comment, we should tag second iterations deleted articles as speedy deletion candidates instead! --SuperDude 3 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Delete Not encyclopedia material

Delete mariocruft, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathon michals

Teen vanity. Delete. Mr Bound July 2, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
Delete — ditto. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 08:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sami Yusef

Probable vanity --2 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)File Éireann

Keep. Google found 42'100 entries. Seems to be a known Arabic musician. The phrase "Indeed, it is rare to find a person who has all these talents" makes it sound like vanity. yc21 July 3, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

You are right. I forgot to check Google. However I note the entire article has been lifted from http://www.samiyusuf.com/biog/index.htm I won't change the article myself as I'm the one who listed the article for deletion. --File Éireann 3 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio then. I will commence copyvio process. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivisions (Maya Software)

Duplicates existing entry on SDS subdivision surface, while also adding reference to one (proprietry) piece of software - Nigosh 2 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Delete — yes it appears redundant. I't not even linked from the Maya (software) page. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Hanley

Vanity of the worst kind. Kill it. Please. I had to struggle to resist the temptation to speedify this steaming pile of oozing self-love. FCYTravis 2 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Delete. Good restraint FCY, but this has to be VFDed to show its patheticness. Harro5 July 3, 2005 00:10 (UTC)
delete - no "guerrilla marketing" needed here CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, self-promotional. I've neutered the external link. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 3, 2005 01:25 (UTC)
Delete vanity and self promotion. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
Terminate with extreme prejudice (i.e., delete). I can't add anything that others haven't already said. Dale Arnett 6 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
Delete likewise

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 00:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George A. Borgman

George A. Borgman was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-01-28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George A. Borgman/vote 1.

I am putting this page up for deletion because he is non-notable and because it is vanity and because it seems to have been written by himself or someone in his family. He is a nobody! Get rid of him! MichaelMoore 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC) Delete.
Keep He is notable enough for me. It doesn't matter who wrote it or why. Paul August ☎ July 3, 2005 04:00 (UTC)
Keep Not exceptionally notable, but the article is comprehensive and the content is verifiable. Possible POV in the tone, but that can easily be cleaned up by someone less lazy than ourselves. Dystopos 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Delete. Plank 3 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Keep. Borderline notability, article is NPOV. Pburka 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
Delete POV borderline notability. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
- Comment. In consideration of the fact that notability is not itself a criteria for deletion, and that deletion is considered a rather extreme form of correction, unsuitable for POV issues, I strongly recommend cleanup rather than deletion. There is some good information there that shouldn't be trashed because of editorial weaknesses. Dystopos 4 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm curious which portions of this article editors find too POV. I think it's fairly neutral. Pburka 4 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
  - I agree. Of course, POV-ness on its own is not a reason to delete anyway. Jgm 6 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. He's a published critic with a movie role. A borderline case, but meets the standard, I think. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
Keep. If he really is anything like one of the top ten jazz critics, as claimed, he's definitely notable. Surely we have server space for ten contemporary jazz critics on Wikipedia. I think the author of the article is a non-issue.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
Keep He seems to be notable enough to have an entry, due to recognition (I did not check for verification.) --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
Keep. Information here is easily verified and proves notability. No consensus to delete before, no significant changes, should not have been re-nominated in the first place. Jgm 6 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 08:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Henderson

Delete. nn, vanity ChelleRae 3 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Delete nnanity, per nominator. Google gives 60 hits for "David A. Henderson" Illinois, all or most of which seem to be an academic of the same name. Does reveal his phone number, though...-Splash July 3, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Transwiki to Memory_Alpha. Fen will be fen. But, my opinion is not encyclopedic. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional anaesthesia

This article appears to me to be a less comprehensive article, and a duplication of the subject of Local anaesthesia L-Bit 3 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

While I don't know the subject, the thing to do if that is indeed the case would be a redirect from one to the other. No VfD required. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, expand. Different from Local anaesthesia, and if that is a valid topic then this should be also, with cross-reference links both ways. It is important for the article to show that it is not the same as local. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

But, keep in mind I am not in the medical profession or by any means knowledgeable about anaesthesia. ~~Make my vote Weak Keep for now.~~ --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Back to Keep, with restructuring. Looking for definitions makes me think that local anaesthesia is a subset of regional anaesthesia. Therefore, I suggest that the material in Local anaesthesia be moved to Regional anaesthesia and a redirect created from the local anaesthesia article. But, first, we must ask the age-old question - Is there a Doctor in the house?. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Keep Had I done some research before posting here, I would probably not have posted as VfD. Acccording to Oysten's website, local anaesthesia is indeed a subset of regional anaesthesia and so User:WCFrancis; you are correct. However, as Dr Oysten states, ".... many people use the phrase (local anaesthesia) loosely to include regional anaesthesia". That begs the question, if "Local" is more commonly used to refer to the medically correct term "Regional", and I would hazard a guess that "more commonly" should be read as "almost universally", then should "Local" be the main entry? I note also that the original "Regional" article spells anaethesia without the second 'A'. I have no idea if this is American spelling or a typo. So, I am giving up with this VfD and copying this whole section to the two discussion pages - "Regional" and "Local" in the hope that a medical person and/or a person better versed in Wiki procedures can clean up the issue. L-Bit 01:11, 10 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

[edit] Psi Phi

Delete nn website, Alexa 500K+

Delete nn, made by same author as David A. Henderson, which is up for VfD above. -Splash July 3, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
Transwiki to Memory_Alpha. Fen will be fen. But, my opinion is not encyclopedic. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] July 2

[edit] Chip Berlet

[edit] Bruce Penton

[edit] General K

[edit] Chronicle 9

[edit] List of musicians that are popular amongst Nickelodeon fans

[edit] The ugly theorem

[edit] Cross Movement

[edit] Tafelspitz

[edit] Jewish Relief Agency

[edit] Tray Shadix

[edit] Luke Brown

[edit] Luke Brown

[edit] Richard Otis

[edit] Vonage VoIP Forum

[edit] John Gotti Jr.

[edit] Render braswell

[edit] Ryu-Ha Shin-Ninjitsu

[edit] Template:Portuguese grammar index

[edit] Template:Portuguese grammar index

[edit] Nudity in The Simpsons

[edit] References to Star Trek in The Simpsons

[edit] Stephanie Snodgrass

[edit] List of War on Terror incidents

[edit] Major Road Network

[edit] Pat ma

[edit] Middelsprake

[edit] Calum

[edit] BHCA

[edit] Caco-

[edit] Built-in

[edit] Bluesnarfing

[edit] Jamshid fazilati

[edit] Salih Ozkan

[edit] Johnathan Benson

[edit] Ronda Eller

[edit] Jonathan R. Thompson

[edit] Wen-Fu Cho

[edit] Shane Young

[edit] Pornstar Pets

[edit] Oxygenated liquid

[edit] Michael Rother

[edit] Woodward's building

[edit] Dragon Metal

[edit] Mary Baglole

[edit] David Reimer

[edit] Ron Gray

[edit] Fucked Company

[edit] K'breel

[edit] Swehack

[edit] Ingenium Digital

[edit] Coré

[edit] The Tech Report

[edit] Watik 853

[edit] Picks and Strings Music Studio

[edit] Vincent cabochan

[edit] Pogago

[edit] Darth Ruin

[edit] Nathan Kittler

[edit] Reham Fouda

[edit] Coastal Stream

[edit] Inland Stream

[edit] Hackthissite

[edit] Disaster tourism

[edit] Barret Traditional Middle School

[edit] Either Or Argument

[edit] Mario poljak

[edit] Dragon clan

[edit] Stephanie Cleghorn

[edit] Kardos Empire/Kingdom, Kardos Kingdom, Principality of Sodrak

[edit] Dwang

[edit] Dutch wife

[edit] Comprador

[edit] Coaming

[edit] Chickenshit

[edit] Cardinal symptom

[edit] Counterpane