Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 30

< July 29	July 31 >

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 16:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frente Civico

Poorly written propaganda. It should be noted also that the author has defaced Costco and other oarticles in order to make a point about evil corporations. Title translates to civic front, not notable. Delete drini ☎ 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; not an article, just the symptoms of some argument or other. Flowerparty ^talk 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as rewritten. Flowerparty ^talk 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or Rewrite) The current article is definetely POV and unencyclopedic, however the orginization itself seems notable enough to have an article. Uber nemo 01:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV and not really notable or needed. In agreement with the above. -mysekurity 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I have rewriten the article to remove POV (pretty easy in this case). Its hard for me to judge notability, an english google search only turns up 556 articles [1], but a mutli-lingual search turns up a lot [2]. This might just be the use of the phrase "Frente Civico" and not reference to the group, I really don't know. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. ESkog 21:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the rewritten version is useful. Nandesuka 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Punkmorten 16:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, they are a real group in Mexico, but the article is in need of cleanup. Karmafist 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seek n Destroy

Cracking group article with no claim to notability and an article with no content except a link: http://snd.crackz.ws Mmmbeer 00:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete drini ☎ 00:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nothing there. Flowerparty ^talk 00:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've now tagged it as a speedy delete. Utter nonsense article. CanadianCaesar 01:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Lilburne Research Institute

This is the second VfD for this article. As shown below, the first time there was twice as many votes to delete, but it was kept. This article is a vanity/soapbox/original research by User:MPLX. The only Google references to this organization are from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. The same user who did this article also created a series of questionable articles and inserted original research on several more. The other articles by this person that are currently on VfD are:

• Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
• Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
• Eric Gilder (professor) - (VfD)

Detailed info can be found on the various talk and VfD pages. --JW1805 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)

It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of right-wing idiots.

It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.

It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.

Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)

• Strong delete. Whatever this institute might be, it's clearly not the subject of this incoherent article. Monicasdude 04:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• The original VfD had this article redirected, but the original author brought it back to life. Therefore delete outright or return it to Redirect. --Calton | Talk 06:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. - ulayiti (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Do not redirect. Radiant_>|< 09:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: nonnotable, promotion, incoherent. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity junk CDC (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 22:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• What is this? An institute whose purpose is to prove that somebody name John Lilburne was an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson? Libertarian-geneological original research, unsupported, it seems. In that case, Delete unless author rewrites completely before this is closed. DavidH
• Delete nn/possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. DS1953 16:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, vanity. Lovingly crafted, but still a vanity article. Tempshill 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and probably merge with Four Freedoms Federation (assuming it survives), per Gene poole's vote in the original discussion (archived below). Definitely needs a lot of NPOV, though. Lusanaherandraton 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note to admins: if this page is deleted, you should also delete Genie Baskir. This is the only page that this links to (except a couple talk page references by original creator).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus; however, article has already been merged and redirected). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Lilburne Research Institute

I am nominating this vanity page for deletion because I strongly suspect that it violates several Wikipedia policies, especially:

• no original research
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox

A Google search for this so-called institute brings up only 501 hits.

The user who created this page has been attempting to link several pages (like Miranda v. Arizona) to this page when such links, if any, should link to John Lilburne. Furthermore, as I have already argued at great length on the John Lilburne talk page, Lilburne's impact on modern law may well be of historical importance, but in terms of how modern American criminal law is practiced at present, his impact is minimal when compared to giants like Blackstone, Story, and Ely.

--Coolcaesar 18:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — and clean up/merge some elements of the article. You are joking when you say it "only" brings up 501 google hits, aren't you?? The JPS 19:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. Typing in John Lilburne Research Institute into Google brings back only 501 hits, and putting quotes around that (in order to search on the phrase) returns only 9 hits (which all appear to be Wikipedia content, either direct from WP or mirrored). Why the heck should Wikipedia have a page on an institute that obscure? --Coolcaesar 19:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now! Still, I think some reworking could result in this being a good useful article. The JPS 20:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. This article was written with love and care by an insider who tried to make this non-notable group sound as though it had an actual impact in the world. I would also vote for deletion of Four Freedoms Federation and all the other links these articles contain to non-notable groups and people. This set of inter-linked articles has the veneer of gravity to it, but it's all just a well-crafted set of vanity articles. Tempshill 23:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep unless you can show me why an organization that essentially went into decline around 1992 should have a lot of hits on Google in 2005? By this reasoning only current organizations can be mentioned. Second, this organization obviously did attract attention back in the period from 1984 to 1992, as referenced by publications and broadcasts. For some reason Coolcaesar who describes himself/herself as a "law student" has decided that it is of no consequence that Chief Justice Warren linked Lilburne to Miranda in his opinion of the 1960s, because according to some strange logic here, only cases of the present age are of merit according to this "know-it-all" law student who does not cite books but only various Internet research tools. But not everything is already on the Internet. That's one reason for having Wikipedia! Consequently Leonard W. Levy who won a Pulitzer in 1969 for his work (Origins of the Fifth Amendment) that has Lilburne at its core, is of no avail according to Coolcaesar, who actually went pretty much to the limit by virtually calling Justice Black a senile old git who could not remember the day of the week for adopting Lilburne as his hero. Coolcaesar dismissed Black's biography as being "what did she know, he was too old". I have not used the Heritage Foundation and many other sources for reference because the article is quite long already. However Coolcaesar is making a POV rant by his call for deletion to get rid of something that was news to him/her that did not fit in with something that he/she already knew because on this score Coolcaesar has gone to great lengths to explain his/her superior knowledge about all matters relating to law ... without having a clue as to who he/she is attacking. Anyway, its only a historical article, so whatever. However, if this article falls for this silly reason, then just imagine how many other articles totally unrelated to this subject would be immediately struck from Wikipedia using the same criteria used by Coolcaesar. The sad fact about many Internet junkies is that they declared war on traditional libraries and it is within the books of those libraries that the jewels of education are to be found. When the Internet swept in many libraries began dumping and sometimes selling huge quantities of books and anything else that was printed in order to make space for computer screens. Fortunately many collections were rescued, but not all. But what has been created is a world where books are dispised and the computer screen is thought to hold the keys to all truth. In 2005 it does not. MPLX/MH 02:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • None of the above rant answers the criticism that this odd set of articles is, collectively, a vanity piece that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By the way, John Lilburne is not the subject of the discussion, but John Lilburne Research Institute. Tempshill 22:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What an odd article. RickK 06:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/promo. Odd is right. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promo article. I asked some lawyers, and and only one had heard of John Lilburne, and called him a "footnote in English history" and not really part of legal history. Another said that to call him a "footnote" in legal history was overstating things. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It may well have been a crackpot group promoting fringe theories, that's all the more reason to ensure Wikipedia records its existence. The article does need some serious NPOV surgery though.--Gene_poole 00:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 13:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. I count 33 Keep, 28 Delete, and 3 Merge (counting "rename" as a vote to keep, since we can't delete & rename), which is roughly 44% Delete, 51% Keep, 5% merge; soundly No Consensus. Essjay · Talk 01:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• A slight recount, as it appears the number of votes was a bit off: I see 30 Keeps and 30 Deletes. (The nominator's vote, even if the identity is in question, should be counted as a delete). Reviewing the "rename" votes appears that they are likewise split: there are 5 "Keep, but rename" (counted as Keeps), and 3 Rename OR Merge-- which should default to merge, rather than "keep" -- since we can't, as you say, keep & merge. Plus, there are 3 clear "Merge with State Terrorism." (1 vote to delete the "troll nominator" was not counted either way). My feeling is that in this instance, Merge votes should be considered a special form of "delete"-- with a request to removing the separate article, and combine the factual info into another one. Thus, they should not be counted against "Delete" in the final tally. Thus, it's pretty much 50/50. Still a No Consensus, of course-- which is just why VfDs will continue to be problematic. --LeFlyman 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• This one was a difficult one to close. I considered leaving it alone, but it was the last one in the archive, so I decided to suck it up and close it. I used a pencil & paper to tally votes, but I'm not suprised I missed some; it was just so blasted confusing. Anyhow, no consensus seems to be the right call. -- Essjay · Talk 07:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli terrorism

Pardon me for having to edit this already existant VfD page, I do not happen to know how to archive this previous VfD page. I bring this page to a VfD delete for a variety of reasons:

1. I feel it is inherently biased
2. A page of this manner already exists dealing with Israeli state terrorism and this should be merged there AT THE MOST
3. This page could easily be renamed Jewish Terrorism as that it what it deals with and such a page is inherently biased as it attacks Jews
4. This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists [personal attack removed] ... and despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia
5. The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote. --ProudWHITEIsraeli 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• See also /Closed June 11, 2005 vote

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• Speedy keep Take a look at this guy's user name and profile. This is a troll nomination. CanadianCaesar 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, a "troll". Trust me, Im here to fight against trolls, not be one. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that why you called User: Mustafaa a racist? CanadianCaesar 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and as if it wasnt so blatant that you are a left-wing nut, you have just proved yourself a RACIST. What about my name? What exactly is wrong with being PROUD of your ethnicity and heritage? Simply because I am White and happen to be PROUD of it I am a troll? -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Speaking of trolling...--Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zionist terrorism is a valid article but the Israelis don't currently practice terrorism as it is currently understood but military operations. Although I would appreciate more information about the nominator.Capitalistroadster 01:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable'. This is news to me. This topic either as presented or merged with State Terrorism is worthy of inclusion. I am sure it will undergo a lot of revision as editors put their spin on it but that is no reason for deletion.--Porturology 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Maybe you live in California or New York or some such place, but the majority of REAL Americans Citizens (and that word CITIZENS is vital and entails much) as well as the majority of the world, recognize that all these attacks on Israel ARE laughable and are racist and just products of the Socialist Propaganda Machine. Sorry if your left-wing fanatical delusions have severed your ties to reality. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. You are being exceptionally rude. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is a madeup concept. Perhaps Israeli-sponsored terrorism would work, but actions of a military do not fall under the definition of terrorism. freestylefrappe 01:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete about time this came up for VfD. This page is lacking any real documented incidents of "Israeli terrorism", instead it recasts Israeli efforts against terrorism as being themselves terrorist. Klonimus 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasons as Klonimus. Carioca 02:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have concerns about the nominator and whether this is a good-faith nomination. I also want to distance myself from his comments about Mustafaa. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted because it's a POV personal essay. It doesn't define terrorism, it's unencyclopedic with no sources, and it has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, because there are no reputable or scholarly sources who would agree that the incidents listed are examples of terrorism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Brother, I assure you my nomination is completely in good faith, I merely seek to rid the world of the sick propaganda that the Socialist Establishment espouses, namely articles such as this one. My comments about "Mustafaa" were not meant as a personal attack and I am sorry if they have been interpreted in such manner, however I do not rescind my statements one bit. I beleive it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews and anyone who is proud of their Whiteness and adherance to Judaism. Do I even need to point further than to the Islamic-Arab allusion his username alludes to than to prove that he is a Socialist Racist? But thank you for backing me up, I wish I could state myself so eloquently as you but yes, this article is very POV and has ZERO encyclopedic content. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Fernando Rizo has reprimanded me for my comments here and I would just like to say I apologize somewhat for my tone and vocabulary but I stand by my beliefs. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This page needs cleanup , and definetly needs sourcing; but it does discuss a a very real issue in our world. Though as it stands it is a poor article. And second, due to the hurtful and biogted way this VfD started I believe it should be closed and broguh up for vote again in a few weeks; this has gotten off to such a bad start it need some time so cooler heads can prevail, be they for deletion or not. Additionally (my thanks to Guettarda) this page does not meet criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy--LouieS 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hurtful and bigoted? I dont feel an ounce of pain over "hurting" Racists and Communists. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not meet the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. In addition, why are the nominator's personal attacks still on this page? Guettarda 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  Yes it violates WP:NOT is not a soapbox, as well as no original research. Klonimus 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Controversy is not a good reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-NPOV and unencyclopedic in intent. --TJive 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with State terrorism, again. El_C 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Surprise surprise, a KNOWN AND OPEN COMMUNIST wanting to keep the article. Who woulda guessed? -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • �`אמת, מי El_C 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the troll nominator. Let the article cool for a month and if someone with credibility who can defend the nomination appropriately wants to renominate it, reopen the discussion. This is going to go nowhere because whether the outcome of this VfD is delete or keep it will be for all the wrong reasons. -EDM 06:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Again, POV or lack there of is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --LouieS 06:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with EDM. The personal attacks on this page make it difficult to reach a reasonable consensus--Porturology 06:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ruy Lopez 06:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep calling a well respected user like Mustafaa a racist is indicative of the nominators extreme POV, and inappropriate views. ~~~~ 07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Barring the nominator's user name, I think the article should be kept, but a rename sounds good. The word "terrorist" by itself is breaking NPOV - what you might call a terrorist, I or others will call them freedom fighters, or vice versa. The new title, IMHO, should be Violence committed by Israel. Plus, it could be hard to merge this article into State terrorism, since some of the acts committed by Israelis were not under the direction of the Israeli Government or, as pointed out, retaliation against attacks from the groups residing in the West Bank and Gaza. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We can't delete articles just because someone doesn't like them. The article is perfectly NPOV and represents all points of view fairly. Besides, the claim that there is a 'popular consensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable', is... well, laughable. - ulayiti (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ive addressed this before, please read above before commenting. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Represents views that are held by a notable number of people. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 09:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remind me WHERE these views are held by a notable number of people? Outside of California and NY and other filthy overcrowded inner-cities such as that? Have you ever met an American White (we are the majority after all) CITIZEN who holds these views? Didnt think so. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoa there. (raises hand) White Kansas American citizen here. I don't know that it's useful to assign right/wrong to the actions of the governments of Israel or Palestine, but to say that we should completely "whitewash" the articles in Wikipedia is downright offensive. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to something more neutral. Agentsoo 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How about naming it to something more TRUTHFUL such as "Unverified Racist Accusations Aimed at Jews and Whites, Written By Biased Racist Arab Communists" -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Troll nomination; WP:POINT. Delete it (the nomination, I mean). If this isn't possible (if this VfD must be taken seriously), then keep the article and have it edited as necessary. Nothing obviously wrong with the title, either. -- Hoary 09:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Acusing a country as "terrorist" conflicts with NPOV for one. The page requested to be deleted is an excelent example of what wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Israel terorises by buldosing palestinian settlemensts? Come on. With that logic I am a terrorist for helping buld a dam. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Haha, exactly friend. Moving dirt, moving "Palestinians", no difference. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia should never reflect the views of people who equate human beings with dirt. Debate over. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. AFAIK, facts do not necessarily conflict with NPOV. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can be couched in weasly language if you want to make it ultra-NPOV. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Stop putting this article up for VFD again and again...Heraclius 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when did the fact taht an article has been up for VfD before preclude it from being put up again? I feel this is completely legitimate. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the parenthetical abuse and cheerleading really necessary TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli), or could we please have a fair an civil vote in the spirit of Wikipedia?

• • • Comment I doubt User:TelAvivKid is a real Israeli. Considering the hatred most white supremecists have for Jews, and the fact that the families of most Israelis came from the Middle East rather than Europe, I don't think you'd see many racists of this type among real Israelis. My guess is that "TelAvivKid" is a troll or someone trying to smear actual Israelis.

--LouieS 16:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Can somebody please block the damn troll. -EDM 16:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If you ignore just how damn racist he is, at least he is absurd to the point of humor! --LouieS 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

    He's not racist, he's making it up, and doing it poorly. -EDM 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - both the article and the troll. I'm no fan of Israel, but calling its actions 'terrorist' is clearly POV (perhaps even mine). An article concering Israeli behavior in the occupied territories etc (which I'm sure we have elsewhere) could discuss how many have spoke of this as state terrorism - but in the title? Inherently POV. --Doc (?) 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The title is just dandy, too. —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The very title is POV (the subject may be worth mentioning in State terrorism and/or IDF, though).--Doron 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A better title would be Alleged Israeli atrocities, and it should be moved, but that can be done boldly after appropriate discussion on the Talk page. I am sure we will end up with redirects from "Israeli atrocities", links from the relevant dab pages, and so on, which seems right and proper. Robert A West 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Controversial subjects should still be treated in Wikipedia. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. I think it's a poorly written article, and poorly titled, but the subject matter is absolutely legit. Nandesuka 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding some of the reasons:
  1. "It is inherently biased" -- having a section about Security within Microsoft Windows is not inherently biased, but instead provides a balanced view of the issue-- this page should do the same
  2. "it attacks Jews" -- The page is restricted to actions by the governement of Israel, and is supposed to deal with the "interpretation of israeli policy and action in the past". It has nothing to do with a religion or culture.
  3. "This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists" -- You cannot go around making personal attacks in your vfd (calling User: Mustafaa racist, for example).
  4. "despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia" -- this can be added to the page, but I would include some sources because I think this might be contentious.
  5. "The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote."-- I'm not sure we're looking for consensus, just a majority. Consensus will probably take longer ;)

Given the lack of consensus, I am beginning to think that the title is definitely POV. I would support renaming to "Alleged Israeli state terrorism", or merging with State Terrorism, regardless I think there should be a link to this information from Israel.

MisterSheik 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unredeemable POV, soapbox, original research. I would accept an article titled "Israel military action" or similar, or includion of documented information in a violence against civilians article. But this as is will never meet WP guidelines, IMO. DavidH 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Which part is original research? :) MisterSheik 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to something more neutral, or merge into a more appropriate page. This slop is already covered in excrutiating detail. — RJH 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for any of the numerous reasons above. If it can be renamed something more neutral, and the quality improved, all the better. Sabine's Sunbird 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Inherently POV -- and as mentioned above, fails the "What Wikipedia is Not" Test ("Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine" -- see, in particular the Propaganda list items Appeal to fear, Stereotyping and Scapegoating. --LeFlyman 02:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article as an editorial soap box and merge salvagable information with state terrorism. There is absolutely no reason that Israel should be singled out because of some warped definition by fringe loonies. Guy Montag 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• To clarify my vote last time this came up for VfD, Strong Delete. My rationale? To quote my vote last time: "Merge with State terrorism, and replace this article thereafter with a redirect thereto. This is a contentious topic, and it's patently obvious, unfortunately, that a number of editors are allowing their personal POVs to interfere with their votes on this issue. Until Iranian terrorism, Iraqi terrorism (which is currently a redirect to the anti-"Freedom coalition" nonsense going on in Iraq, rather than what would be relevent, in keeping with the content of this article (i.e., Israeli terrorism), Yemeni terrorism (or Yemenite terrorism)), Libyan terrorism, Syrian terrorism, Egyptian terrorism and Indonesian terrorism get their own articles, this one is completely unjustified. This is nothing more than POV-pushing, and anyone who votes to keep it belies any claim they make to being a NPOV editor." Tomer ^TALK 02:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Tomer --Eliezer | £�,�åV�,� m�,� å m�,�§§åg�,� 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the less inflammatory parts with State terrorism: there might someday be an actual article of this title, but this article in no way, shape, or form is it or evrn the kernel of it. Oh, and censor the confused little troll who nominated it. --Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing User:Alberuni would do, who's also from Atlanta, Georgia. It must have killed him to make all those spelling mistakes on purpose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Er, why would he start it in the first place if he wanted it to fail? - ulayiti (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

For a laugh. And by being obnoxious, he's hoping people will vote for the article as a vote against him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any specific user whose sockpuppet he is accused of being? I'll admit to not being too familiar with the "whites and Jews unite" racial supremacist theory, but then again this is the internets, to paraphrase a quote. --TJive 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably banned user Alberuni, who likes nothing better than to cause trouble for Israel and Jews in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I assumed that it was just an under-educated Israeli adolescent who doesn't realize how dumb he comes off claiming to be a proud "White" when in many places in the world Jews aren't consider "white" or "caucasian" (an inherent misnomer.) Sadly, Israelis can be prejudicial and racist against their own; within Israel there's still residual devisiveness between Ashkanazim (European Jews) and Sefardim (generally, non-European Jews), although that's disappearing in favor of prejudice against "new" immigrants from former Soviet states and (particularly) those from Ethiopia (Falasha). Whatever this user's personal racist beliefs, they should not form the reason to vote for/against deletion. The article should be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof. (However, I would point out to TelAvivKid that arguing about others' votes makes his/her case unsympathetic.) --LeFlyman 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, he wanted you to assume it was an "under-educated Israeli adolescent". In fact, it was a strawman sockpuppet of an American Muslim, and his personal racist beliefs are about Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any proof that it's an American Muslim or are you just blaming people at random?Heraclius 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Your question is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma, and the person running this strawman sockpuppet has been identified above. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There are no "fallacies" in casual discussions. This is not a debate (thank God). But the only evidence you have for him being an American Muslim is that the behavior seems like that of User:Alberuni. Looking at his page, I see no evidence of him being an American Muslim.Heraclius 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You see no evidence that Alberuni was an American Muslim? Whatever. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think what's confusing to the previous commenter (and myself) is the claim that TelAvivKid/ProudWhiteIsraeli is the same person as the banned user, Alberuni. Is there any actual evidence, or just supposition (as stated above, that it's "probably" him) ? --LeFlyman 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been following it, and it looks like pure conjecture to me that TelAvivKid is in any way firectly related to Alberuni; unless there is something we arent being told. --LouieS 20:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius and LouieS may have started editing after Alberuni's reign of terror. He was a highly disruptive editor who was running over a dozen sock puppets at one point, deeply anti-Semitic, racist, and abusive. Those on the receiving end of it became familiar with his trademarks, which I won't describe here, but they're evident in this user. If it's not Alberuni, the user has been invited to get in touch to discuss the issue, and I'm sure s/he'll do that if there's been any unfairness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (pov) merge to Israel and State Terrorism accordingly. DiceDiceBaby 06:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The assassinations belong in State terrorism. The rest of the article duplicates others, or is unsubstantiated filler. --Uncle Bungle 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong keep The title is fine (if you agree that the title Palestinian terrorism is fine). As regards the suggested name change to an apparently less POV title, if this is carried through, then the SAME SHOULD BE DONE WITH Palestinian terrorism. --Mpatel 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and ban anyone that puts this up for vfd again anytime soon. --Dv 18:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE, doesn't exist.  Grue  19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article is POV. PMLF 23:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If there are POV problems, try the edit button. Shem^(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Briangotts (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per MisterSheik. Rename if necessary. Shem^(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is an Israeli terrorrism. Not so wide as the Islamic one, although it exists. It's more ponctual. An example? Iztak Rabin was not killed by palestinians. José San Martin 02:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC) (my grandfather was jewish).

The murder of Yitzhak Rabin was an assassination by a politically extreme individual, not a terrorist action by an entire society. There is a vast difference, and claiming this as proof of supposed "Israeli Terrorism" is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association" -- as well as false premise. Oh and referencing an ancestor as Jewish as somehow relevant to this matter is a form of "Special pleading". --LeFlyman 04:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article, and then merge any still relevant information that is not original research into State Terrorism. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per a good two thirds of the reasons listed above. Junjk 07:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as José San Martin. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete all "Xyz terrorism" articles. If wikipedia wants to be in the "terrorism" blame game then it should keep them all, if not then delete them all. Israelis are not the chosen people. --Magabund 19:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazingly enough, from what I can tell no other country has a "Country terrorism" article devoted to it. No "American terrorism", "British terrorism", "Chinese terrorism", "Zimbabwean terrorism" etc. I guess, on Wikipedia, Israel is indeed "chosen" for special treatment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. Why not a Hebrew terrorism? I think there's only a wrong name, not a wrong article. José San Martin 01:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Israeli" does not equal "Jewish". Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions; Israel is a multi-religious country. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • • I think the George Carlin quote fully applies here:"Israeli murderers are called commandos, but Arab murderers are called terrorists".Heraclius 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It does? I don't see how; Baruch Goldstein, for example, is clearly listed as a terrorist in the Terrorism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• My comment is unrelated to the one above it.Heraclius 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• The juxtaposition of Israeli and Arab murderers seems to imply that there are no Arab Israelis, whereas there are over 1,100,000, around a fifth of the population. SlimVirgin ^{<fontcolor="Purple">(talk)} 05:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the word "Palestinian" would be better, but I wanted to preserve the integrity of the quote.Heraclius 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• While I agree with Slim and Jayig; I think its worht noting that perhaps this article is talking about the wrong things. You have to look at the fact that Israel in the not so didtant past sanctioned torture. Beond that, Israeli Tarrorim has a phenomenon is worht mention; that is simply because it exsists in a good portion of people's minds in our world, in needs to be adressed. I think this page addresses it in entirely the worng way. Rahter we should be looking at how and why people came to look at Israeli actions as terrorism in the first place, who those people are and why they came to their conclusions. --LouieS 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Louie, fairies exist in the minds of lots of people in the world, but that doesn't make them real. Our policies say we should cite the views of published majority- and significant-minority opinion (not tiny-minority opinion). When I last looked, not a single source was cited, so the article as it stands violates our content policies, and were it to be cleaned up to be in accordance with them, much of its current content would have to be deleted. The point is that it's unfair to single Israel out when there's no article on British terrorism, French terrorism, Italian terrorism, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not a proponent of the singling out either. I think the solution here is to extend the information relating to other examples of state terrorism. Surely, this would help put things into perspective. This can start by extending the country sections of the State terrorism article -- if a country's section becomes large, a new article should be created. I think the "don't single anyone out" argument should always be dealt with by extending the information that we represent rather than removing information. Should we not have created an article on Windows until we have Linux? The detractors can add balance by adding information rather than removing it.

Regarding sources, we already have a number of sources at the bottom of the page and in the text. I think that regardless of your viewpoint, the notability of the article is evident given the sources and the surrounding debate. We have an article on Sasquatch -- doesn't mean he exists :). MisterSheik 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename or Move - Including the word "terrorism" is inherently POV, likewise all other articles whose titles inclde the word. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Tomer -- Mario 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT: First off this is TelAvivKid/ProudWHITEIsraeli, I had to make this account because once again my account was banned (read: censored). This account will probably be banned soon too since SlimVirgin said I can't return until I "prove I am not Alberinu". Right. Well that should be easy :-/. No worries though, I was just on a friends account reading this and decided to answer some questions, Ill probably stop editing after this. First off I am not Alberuni, I dont even know who that is, but if hes anti-Semitic then he deserves to be banned or whatever. For you nosy Commie bastards that want to know more about me, I am in my 20s originally from Tel-Aviv, now living in the United States, HAPPY? I started reading Wiki about 2 months ago and have been especially reading this page until I decided to stand up for Jews everywhere and VfD this POS. I'd just like to say all you a-holes who have accused me of racism while being blind to your own hatred of the White Race, you are truly HYPOCRITES. How come I dont see any articles about how the damn Mexicans are terrorizing the US by coming over here ILLEGALY and lowering our standard of living? How come I dont see any articles on how East Asians are increasinly taking over Slavic lands in Asia ILLEGALLY and IMMORRALY? Huh? Racists. -MissRebelsGuy 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. You first claimed you were originally from Jerusalem.[3] Now you claim you're originally from Tel Aviv. It's hard to keep the story straight, isn't it? Tagid li mashehu, ha'im atah medaber ivrit? Im kein, tichtov mashehu b'ivrit po, bevakahsa. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the reasons others have given above. Much of the content is covered elsewhere, the rest can be merged into other articles (eg State Terrorism etc). The concept of '(insert country here) terrorism' makes little sense anyway, given that terrorism, by definition, is by a non-state actor. Batmanand 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as José San Martin. JamesBurns 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: ?באמת ישראלי, ולא אלברוני, מה שמך בעברית "ProudWHITEIsraeli" יש לי שאלה...אם אתה ,משתמש Tomer ^TALK 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per excellent points Tomer made on July 31. I also would like to question the authenticity of the nominator. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move I think that if this is not OK then Palestinian terrorism should be changed as well. MicahMN | Talk 18:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Incognito 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. some of the information is noteable and should be merged into other articles (perhaps Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). it doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, however. ObsidianOrder 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JustMe2005 15:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unbehagen 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Electric Universe concept. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic circuit

This already exists under Electric Universe concept, and there's no point in forking it here. I've already copy-edited the version there (which is essentially identical, otherwise). I further suspect that this is mere pseudoscience without any notability outside of the already-contentious Electric Universe concept. Therefore, this should be deleted or a redirect should point to Electric Universe concept if it's deemed important enough. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as content already exists. drini ☎ 05:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Electric Universe concept. Redirects are cheap. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Etacar11 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghastly

Ghastly has a webcomic, a family, and razzes the webcomic community. He's far below the bar for notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Why delete it? I personally found the article useful for doing research on web comics. It is already here, so there is no effort involved in leaving it.

(Unsigned comment from User:67.84.218.171 ) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, useful, and well-written.

(Unsigned vote by User:Toxicity01 ) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - The two unsigned comments above are from the two editors who wrote the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

user:Toxicity01 didn't write it, he/she merely added a photo caption and categories. user:Fallout_boy

I confess, I didn't check every diff to see who did what. I just recognized the names from seeing the history. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose you look again. The IP 67.84.218.171 does not appear in the history for Ghastly. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, even if you hate the guy you can't deny the fact that he has contributed a lot to the world of webcomics and his work is very popular. There are articles on webcomic artists with lesser claim to fame. I'm uncertain why this one should be singled out unless it is because of the offense associated with his work.

Unsigned comment from (User:65.92.54.177) drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey, I know Ghastly, and he's a nice guy, if a bit of a webcomic community rabblerouser. He's just not really notable, and info about his life isn't encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. drini ☎ 23:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy --malathion ^talk 23:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Ghastly isn't a Wikipedia user; this seems to have been written by a pair of Ghastly's Ghastly Comic fans. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete sock-supported vanity. --Scimitar ^parley 23:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mrmcgibby 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google only returns two pages [4]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Helps if you spell it correctly Kevin. Then Google returns 10,600 pages.[5] : Unsigned comment from (User:65.92.54.177)

Haha! I stand corrected. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 08:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. Change to "Chris Cracknell", clean up, and place more emphasis on his professional work rather than his personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.62.191 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete, now that the sockpuppets have been brought in. - ulayiti (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete; clealy vanity, and the sockpuppets only make it worse. Brighterorange 01:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ghastly sock vanity. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the socks and anything they puppet. -Splash 02:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When will they learn? Sockpuppets don't help. Ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His webcomic is notable, therefore, he too is notable. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• He hasn't done anything of note beyond the webcomic. Why does he need an article of his own, rather than just a peripheral mention in the webcomic's article? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Abraham Lincoln didn't do much notable besides being President, but for some reason, we're curious about his biography anyway. I think that people who do notable things become notable themselves. Not sure that applies here, though. --malathion ^talk 02:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Horrendously bad analogy. Minor webcomics and influential Presidential terms aren't even close. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• That was actully a very accurate analogy, I'll have to steal it (but replace Lincoln with JFK). user:Fallout_boy
• Rodney Caston hasn't done anything of note beside being part of Megatokyo for the first two years. No one's ever contested him having an article. And yes, while I do appreciate that MT is much more popular than GGC, that doesn't change the fact that GGC is still quite well-known and popular as well. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks for pointing that one out. There's no info there that isn't in Megatokyo, and Rodney Caston hasn't done anything notable since. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• My point was that Ghastly is far from being the only article about a person who's only been involved in one notable thing. We have plenty of those articles, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP!, but cleanup and add more professional information -user:Fallout_boy
• Delete. Wouldn't have bothered voting if it weren't for the sock puppets, so let's ensure this gets condemned. Agentsoo
• Strong Delete not notable --Cholmes75 14:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Stupid, but notable. Nandesuka 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and advertising. Vain and commercial. Self-promotion. DavidH 23:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable webcomic artist. Being on Keenspace doesn't mean much, it's true, but GGC is #1 on Keenspace. Haikupoet 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Ghastly picture. DiceDiceBaby 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable artist/writer. I know because I just came to Wikipedia specifically to find out about whoever writes Ghastly's, and to research the authors of some other web comics (although its a bit sparce here. So it seems that the page is useful. The page should follow the Wikipedia standard formatting and style more closely. Perhaps there should even be two articles, one on the Comic, and one on the author's life, particularly his comics career. This would seem more in line with other entertainment media represented on wikip.

  P.S. I first read Ghastly's Ghastly several years ago, and, while I read several other web comics, have never read megatokyo. --Choz Cunningham 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Not notable by himself, only one notable work. Nifboy 08:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps merge some info to Ghastly's Ghastly Comic. Not notable. Teklund 11:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ToRAM

Delete. The article admits it is a neologism, used only "by Damn Small Linux and Feather Linux users". Google returns about 18,000 hits, but less than 1,000 seem to be Linux-related. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 01:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as it's a neologism, it clearly means "to ram" and that's all that it means. It's like creating DOG to say A DOG is a dog. drini ☎ 05:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Robert A West 20:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colwyn Jestyn John Philipps, 3rd Viscount St Davids

Genealogical record. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• delete, I speedied it earlier because it is nearly incomprehensible, even if it were a geneaology. Mmmbeer 02:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep surely? We have bundles of articles about peers. In fact, I think we have one for nearly every present and past member (or former member) of the House of Lords. This just needs a succession box and cleanup. -Splash 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can barely tell what the heck is going on in that article at all. Borderline nonsense. --malathion ^talk 03:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Looks a lot like a copyvio from a paper peerage directory, Who's Who, or similar. -EDM 06:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's a straight Copyvio of the entry for Saint Davids in Burke's Peerage. Please note the Rewritten article at Colwyn Jestyn John Philipps, 3rd Viscount St Davids/Temp. This person is the deputy speaker of one chamber of a national legislature. That satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Keep. Uncle G 14:15:22, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle G's stub. --Scimitar ^parley 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but resolve copyvio as above.Robert A West 20:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stub and list on requests for expansion. All peers are notable. David | Talk 23:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, replace w/ rewrite. --Jpbrenna 07:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1736 in Canada

This page has no actual content. freestylefrappe 01:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• It has already been speedied. [6] Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 sp as per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1736 in Canada

No content - just a template. --M@thwiz2020 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete After noticing it was a repost, I speedied it instead. --M@thwiz2020 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Programming in the large

• Oppose. Programming in the large is a standard concept in computer sciences. I (literally) can't see the motivation of this vfd. Ejrrjs | What? 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree whole-heartedly with Ejffjs. Programming in the large is a very important and standard concept. Is this dispute possibly a joke?70.18.196.34 07:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: How is this distinct from Software engineering?
• Keep. I'm in agreement with the two previous authors, but I reccommend them reading about how the VfD system works. Are you opposed to the article or the VfD? (I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying, but it helps to clarify that.) Also, there is no reason stated by the nominator, which leaves me quite suspicious. A Google test returns 38,100 results for the title (in quotes), so it seems notable. BPEL is deemed important, I guess, and it builds on this, so it too must be important. -mysekurity 04:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Standard concept which is one approach to Software Engineering, but I can use an SE techniques individually or in an XP pairing. William Avery 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Not only is this a most appropriate topic for an article with a widely-familiar title, but the content so far isn't bad at all. Whoever submitted this was on crack. Deco 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project Andria

Nonnotable beginning website. — 12.207.151.144 8 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no claim to notability, and their website has an Alexa rank of 2,500,000 or so with 1 incoming link - from "sites using MediaWiki". "Project Andria" gets 39 unique Google hits with Wikipedia mirrors stripped out.-Splash 02:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete drini ☎ 05:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, the only google results are mirrors of wikipedia, other wikis, and things like "project, Andria ..." and "project. Andria ...". Obviously not notable. -mysekurity 05:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Splash 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Easykart

Product promotion. Denni☯ 02:05, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Copyvio. Tagged and listed. -Splash 02:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Thanks, Splash. Another reason to get rid of it. -mysekurity 05:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homersensual

Neologism. No room for expansion. Mmmbeer 02:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Do not merge to anything Simpsonsian because it's just plain made up. It gets 3 Google hits which are of no use. Splash 02:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN as a non notable, but funny, term CanadianCaesar 02:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure its that funny to be put in BJAODN (there are too many unfunny things that just honestly dont deserve to be there). Well, I guess it could go there, but it still should be deleted. In agreement with nominator. -mysekurity 04:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the made-up word from the Simpsons is actually "Homer Sexual". Radiant_>|< 09:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and give User:Radiant! a cookie. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Homersexual (a real made-up-in-the-Simpsons term) if that article is deemed notable. — JIP | Talk 19:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.sars 21:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a huge Simpsons fan and I have never heard the term before Cyclone49 23:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's "Homersexual", and besides, we already have this - Made-up words in The Simpsons. -- MrBland 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have never heard this phrase until now. (02:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy Delete This isn't even an issue to debate. MicahMN | Talk 04:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why does this page exist? It has no merit. 192.250.97.6 10:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Essjay · Talk 20:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Strepfinger

Non-notable cartoon character. (Unless you want to argue that cartoon characters are inherently notable.) Denni☯ 02:13, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Merge into the character list at Ozzy & Drix, looks like most of it is already there anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Starblind. -mysekurity 04:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - NetSerfer 19:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carnuba

Hoax. Unless someone can actually point out an island called Carnuba. Not to mention they claim discovery in "950 by the Viking hero Egil Skallagrimsson".Mmmbeer 02:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional delete until someone finds evidence about its existence. --malathion ^talk 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (perhaps conditional). The only google results returned are car wax and music-related. For now delete as hoax. -mysekurity 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as it is indeed a hoax. Natalee H (the ony reference it provides) was murdered in Aruba not Carnuba. drini ☎ 05:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be a hoax. --Etacar11 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with hoax. Megapixie 01:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fresh Princes

Non-notable band. Joyous (talk) 02:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. I would suggest a redirect to Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, but I can't imagine why anyone would search for that show with a plural CanadianCaesar 02:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

CanadianCaesar 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Come back after that Grammy. Denni☯ 02:48, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Don't delete This article is about a music group popular in the Long Island, New York underground, not the Will Smith show. This is one of the few detailed accounts of its kind. Popularity is not grounds for validity. Information regarding this band is scant, and can only be found in a few magazines. I feel bad for the experimental music community if they are all treated in the same manner as the Fresh Princes. I have relatives of relatives who live in their hometown, and all of this information seems to be relevant and valid in regard to their history and personalities.
  • Vote by 24.184.172.80- user's second vote CanadianCaesar 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much typical bandity article, though a bit longer than most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I like this term "bandity". --malathion ^talk 02:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• do not deleteThe Fresh Princes, or Ozark Softscape, are absolutely wonderful. They are pioneers of this age. While they seem to have a larger following in Asia, it is important for cultural scholars to have a place to find otherwise inaccessible material on them. Rather than simply suggest deletion, it would be helpful for both those interested and the authors themselves for an explanation to be included.

• Do not delete There are no limitations on the actual popularity of the subject of the article. Just because this subject is obscure to some, does not mean that it is innapropriate for this database. This is article is clear, concise, and to-the-point. It effectivly explains the topic of the article in an informative, and unadvertising manner. It provides no external links, and does not solicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.1.254 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2005

• Keep This is an coherent, objective article regarding a group that is obviously important to a demographic of shifting its musical attention. Its incidental lack of nationwide popularity is not a fair grounds of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.172.80 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 July 2005 ...which would be this user's third vote.

• Do not delete While this band is obscure, I belive that it does warrent a listing here at Wikipedia. The information contained is well thought out and informitive. Wikipedia is a place for information and this article is informative. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.66.179 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 July 2005
  • You're partially right, we love informative, thought out articles, but not everything needs one. For example, I could write a very thought out and informative article on my friend's dog. However, that dog is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Because of that, we have rules such as WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. Also, we have WP:MUSIC specifially for music. Please consider these policies before submitting any more articles. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Ken 03:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Dejan Čabrilo 03:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete The page is full of useful information for those who want to know more about this mysterious up and coming new group and is not soliciting. The page is nothing but useful for those that need information on the subject and that is wikipedia is for. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.185.13.48 03:29, July 30, 2005 UTC)
  • Again, refer to WP:Notability. Wikipedia is not an advertisement medium either. Once you have achieved notability, I would be happy to write an article about you, but for now, you have shown no evidence that this band is notable. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • And I quote: There is no Wikipedia policy on notability, nor is this a proposal for one. I wish people would stop pretending otherwise. Lupin 16:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per responses above. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A band who formed earlier this year and to date have not had a record commercially released or played a national tour. Therefore they don't comply with WP:MUSIC, popularity with sockpuppets notwithstanding. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm liking the term "bandity" and also am intrigued by how many voted "do not delete", quite interesting sockpuppets there, which I'm guessing are members of the band. -mysekurity 04:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I would bet that the Fresh Princes have no idea this exists. There were quite a few mistakes in this article because they are basically about as popular today as Lung Leg. It might actually be flattering to them. It really is amazing how much they were able to contribute when they were under the Girls title. In any case, the "sockpuppets" you mention are a result of confusion in using the convoluted voting system.

• Delete non-notable. --ThomasK 10:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Cholmes75 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent reputable sources are given for the information contained in the article. Lupin 16:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even almost famous. Nandesuka 22:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No one here likes The Fresh Princes? This is ridiculous! Why does everyone care so much anyway? Also, I recall that one of the people who voted against this article wrote a series on KISS. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE? (Unsigned comment by 24.184.172.80 (talk · contribs))

• Comment Get a clue. Wikipedia has guidelines for what makes musicians notable. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines and don't take the VfD process personally. Multiple unsigned entries, from unregistered users, made to look like votes (except that the proper way to express Don't Delete is actually Keep) does not help your case. Only one vote can be considered. Making points outside of Wikipedia guidelines does not help your case, either. Whether we like them or not doesn't enter into it at all. Oh, and -- signing with 4 tildes "~~~~" is easy. Watch: WCFrancis 08:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ral315 21:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oddly enough I have run into valid forms of this band all over the wildly exciting internet. They are an ever popular and dare I say prolific band that many seem to enjoy. For the rest of you that have seemingly wasted much time on debating the inclusion or (mostly) exclusion of this entry, I pity you for trying to create such an exclusionary site for absolutely no reason. 68.117.137.4 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)MJK68.117.137.4 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, you must spend your time on a different wildly exciting internet than I do. A search for "The Fresh Princes" Pogsnatcher got me, count 'em, zero hits. A search for just "the fresh princes" got 138 hits, none that I could see referring to this group. So non-notable it is. No one here doubts the fact that your band is entertaining. But you do not have a track record. This encyclopedia stretches its arms far more broadly than any paper-based encyclopedia, but it is still an encyclopedia and it only accepts entries on those who have achieved some degree of notability. Please read the WP:MUSIC article to see what is required for a band article to make it here (and yes, it's not official policy yet, but it is about as close as you're going to get). Denni☯ 04:31, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 & REDIRECT. Essjay · Talk 11:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Batman 2

I don't want to nominate this. I like Batman. I like the Joker. I like Batman Begins. But this is speculation at this point; the Batman Begins article covers this, and while I would redirect, this can just as easily refer to Batman Returns. CanadianCaesar 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's already a VFD for Batman Begins 2. --Madchester 02:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no IMDB entry yet, even. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in accordance with VFD for Batman Begins 2 (in agreement with above). -mysekurity 03:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, Untitled Batman Begins Sequel is the working title of the sequel to Batman Begins. Like Batman Begins 2, this contains nothing but speculation. Delete. android79 04:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Batman Returns --Alan Au 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Alan Au... makes sense to me. Flowerparty ^talk 09:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. as per Alan Au. Batman 2 is an AKA title for Batman Returns, according to Internet Movie Database. Thuresson 13:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Odds are the eventual followup to Batman Begins will not be titled Batman 2 anyway. 23skidoo 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When there is an actual project, an article can be created under the proper title. Robert A West 20:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Batman Returns, per Alan Au, Flowerparty, Thuresson, and 23skidoo. You get the point. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:35, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
• Redirect to Batman Returns Cyclone49 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not a gossip column either and this is pure speculation. I will be interested to know about it when there is some concrete evidence.Cokehabit 22:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le flange du mal

8. An article about a real band that does not assert that band's importance or significance. Denni☯ 02:29, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Delete Bandity. --malathion ^talk 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity and it's copied directly from this website. --Etacar11 01:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity (I had put it up for speedy deletion initially). --Howcheng 22:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Band vanity isn't eligible for speedy. Some of us tried to make it so, but the consensus was to require such articles to be sent to VfD if deletion was deemed necessary. Denni☯ 05:17, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulletproof algorithm

Neologism with self-evident meaning. The term is allegedly "often applied", but according to Google only in this article and Wikipedia mirrors. The extra commentary about robustness can easily be incorporated into Algorithm without inventing a term for it. Fredrik | talk 02:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's in the Jargon File, so move to bulletproof (software). Algorithms are either correct or they're not. Gazpacho 02:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to algorithm
• Delete, algorithm doesn't have such property. Nothing useful to merge with Algorithm, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lacks verifiability because the article is just plain wrong: it confuses the algorithm with the implementation (code). Bulletproof can be applied to the latter but not the former. Robert A West 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 11:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Currie

Vanity. --malathion ^talk 02:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable CanadianCaesar 02:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Robert A West 21:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity. Punkmorten 16:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 12:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sobbi

Website that doesn't seem to be active yet, seems to indicate Sept 2005 as a start date. Edging into speedy territory Rx StrangeLove 02:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Spam --malathion ^talk 02:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable CanadianCaesar 02:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Non-notable.. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (or a link repository). --Mysidia 03:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Mmmbeer 03:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Spam. Someone named RR68 blanked the page -- I reverted and placed a note on their user page, since this was out-of-policy. Robert A West 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn (for now) but let the redlinks stand (hope I did that correctly) I would like the opportunity to repost someday if the site gets as popular as some of the others that have been posted RR68 22:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 12:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Readersheds

Delete. Vanity post about a non-notable website where users can share pictures of their sheds. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete People have too much time on their hands. I'm kept busy deleting the link spam on Wikipedia. :-) --malathion ^talk 02:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable CanadianCaesar 02:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Mmmbeer 03:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though I hear there's a fellow named Arthur who has two sheds. "Twosheds" they call him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Essjay · Talk 12:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Dinkins II

An impressive 0 googles for his full name. I did find his homepage: It was down, and had been hosted on Homestead. humblefool® 02:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as a hoax. He hasn't won any of those awards or gotten credit for any of that. --malathion ^talk 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy kiddy vanity, possible hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I noted this article as it came up. I did find some entries for KD on IMDb[7], but nothing matches that listed article. Mmmbeer 03:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The IMDB entry is definitely not the same guy, unless at age 5 he played "Bodyguard at Poker Game". :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 01:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Www.sinhalajukebox.org

Link spam. --malathion ^talk 02:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete... I think this ought to be speedy. Mmmbeer 02:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 02:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant advertising CanadianCaesar 02:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nothing but a platform for a link, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinhalajukebox

Link spam. NN. Note same contributor as another above Mmmbeer 03:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant advertising CanadianCaesar 03:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant adveritsing --malathion ^talk 03:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Redirected by Lupin. Closing. Essjay · Talk 12:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilshire Associates

Spam, seven words total. Rx StrangeLove 02:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've been bold and redirected. Lupin 16:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 7

WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. --malathion ^talk 03:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obviously not Wikipedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Too many "most likely" and "unknown"s for my taste (and the WP:NOT guidelines). -mysekurity 04:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although not worthy of a speedy in my opinion. This program is supposedly likely to be released sometime before 2020 which puts the article firmly in crystal ball territory. Capitalistroadster 04:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator reasoning.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Speedy delete WP is no crystal ball. --ThomasK 10:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, Pavel Vozenilek 18:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, Doesn't actually contain any information, 80.42.28.76 22:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Utterly pointless, I would vote delete for speculation but thre isn't even any speculation, just saying that when it's going to come out is unknown and that it may be before 2020... Cyclone49 00:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even a confirmed product, and definitely not one that is even being talked about outside of Redmond. ral315 21:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thomas Waddell

Another 0 hits on Google for full name, 1 for the company. humblefool® 03:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as a hoax. --malathion ^talk 03:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 05:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 17:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a hoax, see [8] Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chunitana

non-notable. Chunitana gets 12 googles. person's name gets 1 (for website). RJFJR 03:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Nonsense, no claim of notability. --malathion ^talk 03:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 05:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Woodrow

Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at WP:NOTthat states:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...

which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini ☎ 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it. ~~~~ 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article. IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't. Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits [9], he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'.User:M-filecastle

[edit] Comments

• Comments moved here to clear up votes

---

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that Christianity comes from pagan origins.

• Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

Micheal@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit: M-filecastle (talk · contribs)

---

---

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?

Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

Michael@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liadi Fuertes

Does not fit Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Fails the Wikipedia:Google test completely, no matches. I also believe the information to be a hoax - it says he built a bridge in Alabama, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his research on stomach ulcers, helped build the atom bomb, negotiated with the Nazis, and organized a labor union before going back to Guatemala, all in the space of one year - 1945. I can not find a reference to any of this. Mr. Know-It-All 03:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as hoax. The Nobel laueates for medicine in 1945 were Sir Alexander Fleming, Ernst B. Chain, Sir Howard Florey. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. A Nobel Prize winner, one would think, would at least get one Google hit. CanadianCaesar 03:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. To my knowledge, there is no Nobel prize for work on stomach ulcers. --malathion ^talk 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vandalism/hoax. Content is not merely not verifiable, but refuted. Robert A West 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Robert A West. Gets 0 hits on Google. That's right, 0. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:32, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
• Speedy Delete hoax. Ulcers have nothing to do with world peace. I think. --Etacar11 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pros and cons

• Delete. Belongs on wiktionary (after improvements).
  • Nomination by User:HighHopes CanadianCaesar 03:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it should become unorphaned or transwikified to wiktionary. It's useful, but I think it might serve a better purpose once transwikified. -mysekurity 04:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef already on Wiktionary as usage under both "pro" and "con". Robert A West 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but transwiki. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:33, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)}

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fire by friction

An instruction manual for one of many ways to create fire by friction? Not encyclopedic. Delete. Ken 03:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ISNOT an instruction manual. --malathion ^talk 03:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Summarize and merge to Campfire#Lighting the fire. FreplySpang (talk) 03:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I note that the bow/drill method is already documented at that location. If it weren't, I'd agree that merging is the right thing to do. Ken 13:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonencyclopedic -Soltak 00:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This page was deleted by Denni as a speedy, I am simply closing this entry. Essjay · Talk 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cahcahpoopoopeepeeshire

Speedy delete. Nonsense. Salleman 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• You wanted this {{{d}}} template, not this {{{vfd}}} one. But I agree with your reasoning. CanadianCaesar 04:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gonewireless

Looks like an advertisement -- has no relevance to Wikipedia Toddself 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree. drini ☎ 06:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Recommend speedy delete, as this article has personal contact information. Otherwise delete advertisement. Ken 13:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, nn Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Nothing more to say. -mysekurity 23:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. The article for merging to does not contain this kind of information on any contestant, so I have not added it for this one either. Splash 16:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kimmi Kappenberg

Another 'Survivor' contestant. Sigh... Denni☯ 04:32, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback, unless she's notable for something else. not sure what to do with the all-stars, who'd be on more than one season. Nateji77 04:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or weak merge Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Nateji77. Ken 13:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beam & Astarita

Ad spam, not notable, about 1000 Google hits but almost all are just web directories DS1953 04:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn advert. -mysekurity 05:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree. drini ☎ 06:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. Ken 13:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Havian of Selaren

Neither Google nor Yahoo comes up with any hits for "Sir Havian". Nor are there any hits for "Henry Wayne" +Havian. The link goes to a blank page. John Barleycorn 05:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sir Havian is a recently created character and his homepage appears to be under construction. I am the author of this article and was involved with the play and the film. These are small and independent efforts. Just because it is not on the internet yet does not mean that it does not exist (Tonywiki 05:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

It does, however, indicate that it is probably not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. What is "Jared and the Shark"? and how has it managed to have eight episodes, if it doesn't show up in Google or Yahoo? John Barleycorn 05:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable. And keep those links on the page red, please. CanadianCaesar 05:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I did not make it clear in my earlier post that I was involved in the production of the Sir Havian film. I created this page because I am pleased with the effort and I attempted to write it in a factual way. I will vote to keep the article, but I am a relative Wikipedia "rookie" and I certainly understand if another view prevails. (Tonywiki 05:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC))
  • You did make that clear, which is why we must suspect vanity, a criterion for deletion. CanadianCaesar 05:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I am not a registered user and don't know anything about this article, but it seems to me that if there's nothing in this article that is in error and if noone knows about this play, isn't that a good reason to keep it instead of delete it?
  • Previous Vote unsigned by 66.17.112.6. "Errors" have already been explained. If no one knows about this, it's of no use; no one will look it up. Am I in "error" to suspect sockpuppetry? CanadianCaesar 05:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you mean by "sockpuppetry" because I am pretty new to all this. All I can think is that you are suggesting that I just wrote the comment as another user. I didn't. I did tell some friends that I had created the page; I don't suppose it is out of the realm of possibility that one of them posted a comment.

Previous comment unsigned by User:Tonywiki (drini ☎ 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC))

• Delete vanity. drini ☎ 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I just have to say that, although I have used Wikipedia extensively and I appreciate its quality, I have never before paid any attention to the process by which its quality is maintained. If this article is not appropriate I understand and will accept what seems to be the growing consensus. Thank you to all of you for doing this important work. Please forgive me also for the beginners-errors I have made in this process. (Tonywiki 06:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Not every new venture is encyclopediable. Sorry, Tonywiki: nothing about you personally. "Vanity" simply means self-inserted.--Wetman 06:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is I who owes the apology. Clearly I was wrong to even suspect what I did. Sorry, Tonywiki. CanadianCaesar 07:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No big deal, Caesar. You are probably right to be suspect of comments from IP addresses. (Tonywiki)

• Delete unless reputable independent sources can be found for the statements made in the article. Lupin 16:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable and uncorroborated; vanity likely -Soltak 20:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as premature, without prejudice to creation of an article at some future time, at which point someone not connected with the project should write it. An article about a work-in-progress by the author is tantamount to Original Research. Robert A West 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PlanoOnline

Advert for a nearly content free website that features a forum with a total of 46 posts Rx StrangeLove 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - patent nonsense/short article, no context. There may very well be a website, but there is no link, and I don't quite see how one would be able to decipher even that much from the article. --Mysidia 06:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Doesn't matter which votes I discard, it's a keep. -Splash 16:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The God Who Wasn't There

Article about a straight-to-video documentary, written as if it were copied directly from a press release. NN, WP is not advertising, etc. Calton | Talk 06:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Ah - it wasn't straight to video (even if the theatrical release was only two weeks before the DVD), it interviews some notable people, and the part about how the DVD includes paid screening rights is definitely unusual. Plus, I've trimmed down a lot of the promotional puffery and PR. (note to the admin - careful not to count my vote twice!) DS 13:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous/unregistered/registered-just-to-vote-on-this-debate voters, I'd like to ask you to calm down, please. If you'll notice, this is part of the normal process by which Wikipedia editors determine whether articles should be deleted. Ranting about how Wikipedia is being Orwellian Rightwing Fascist Bookburning Censors is not helpful. DS 13:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (Modified from the original to remove unpleasant implication by DS --Calton | Talk 08:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC))

• Keep. Documentary serving humanity. Important to show this POV in our fundamentalist world (Christianity as well as Islam). Author not striving to make a huge profit (free screenings). Avocade 15:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC) (User's third edit. (Contribs)
• Keep. I have used Wkipedia quite a bit, and this bit of controversy inspired me to join. I wondered how this kind of peer review works, now I know. Disclaimer, having attempted to get an interview with these movie makers, I'm kinda amazed at how organized they are here. --Moviememe 16:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• User's first edit (Contribs) Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 23:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep. Owner of copyright has placed the plot description in the public domain. It's a legit article. JakeGuy88 8:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• User's eighth edit. (Contribs). --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 08:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep. Perfectly legitimate and notable. Dysfunktion 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real documentary obviously in reach of the public (has a IMDb page). Good enough for me. Notable. CanadianCaesar 06:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although it needs EXTENSIVE cleanup. ~~~~ 08:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IMDB-proven, actual film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ken 13:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. 23skidoo 14:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I was going to vote keep but NPOV the blurb - but unfortunately, much of it is a copyvio (keep if I'm wrong)--Doc (?) 19:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

now that the copyvio issue has been cleared up, I'm happy to vote keep - even if its mainly to refute the someone's paranoid persecution complex --Doc (?) 11:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. What 'dwhudson' said. Mike Linksvayer 16:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm starting to worry about the future of the Wikipedia project. It's becoming more about compounding ignorance rather than sharing information. Universist 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One user can't start a Crusade against an entry just because he disagrees with the subject of that entry. If there's an issue with the wording, then reword it; I'd gladly assist in that. --Writer@Large 19:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've seen it and it pisses me off that Wikipedia is nothing more than a bunch of Christian censors who blacklist everything that proves Christ is a FRAUD. --Marcperkel 19:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The movie had special impact that should be documented in this article. Nobody asked for Christian movie articles like The Passion to be removed, so movies about other points of view shouldn't be removed either.--BrendanRyan 19:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is listed here exactly why? Maver1ck 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are substantial copyvios here but this can be taken to WP:CP and salvaged by a rewrite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. From the description, this is less of an attack on Christianity than it is an attack on fundamentalism itself, which, as a rationalist and a Christian, I am all in favour of pointing out the problems in. Also, the cp problems can be fixed - the violation seems to be mostly in the second half. --khaosworks 23:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I had never heard of this film until seeing it listed for VFD. So I read it and found it informative, and can't see how deleting it would add to Wiki's fount of knowledge, which is what we are here for. Yes, it needs salt (wikifying, cleanup, tweaking etc) but that would be better than deletion IMMHO. Moriori 03:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable film, although it needs cleanup. (I'm tempted to vote delete because of the sock/meatpuppets, however... dang.) --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 08:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep/Comment. Please read the rules of how VFD actually works before voting. The lack of understanding here is frustrating. - Vague | Rant 02:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Holy Smokes what the HELL is going on here? Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes to discussion or something?--Tznkai 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What's with all these allegations of "sock puppets"? I know there are a lot of first-timers here, but that's different than a sock puppet, as I understand it. What's happening is that word has spread in the atheist community about this attempted deletion and the attempted deletion of the Atheists of Silicon Valley entry. But these votes are, to my knowledge, all real (my email inbox is full of a similar number of responses). These comments are opinionated as heck, yes, but they're real. Discounting them as "sock puppets" is just inaccurate, unless you have evidence that you are not sharing. --BrianFlemming 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a note: sockpuppets or first-timers, while certainly different phenomena, have the same result on VFD, and that is uncounted votes. Certainly, "word has spread", and it seems to have been done with purpose, that being to keep this article (though seemingly on the grounds that deletion would be censorship, which is not something carried out on Wikipedia). So, accurate or otherwise, it won't really make a difference. - Vague | Rant 03:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia votes for deletion: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." (Emphasis mine.) I do not believe these votes are in bad faith. Nobody's trying to hide anything here. And nobody has asked that first-timer votes be given equal weight with veteran Wikipedians' votes.
        • That seems to settle it, then. Despite some attempts to poison the well against anon and first-time votes, they're welcomed by the rules, even if they don't carry as much weight as regular users. Much more in keeping with Wikipedia's "for everyone, by everyone" reputation.--69.212.54.145 13:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Or, like I just did, voters may be voting without logging in first. [That last comment was mine. D'oh!] --Writer@Large 13:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Uh. I have no problems with discussion for everyone and by everyone. I got tagged as a potential sockpuppet myself the first time I voted. that having been said, this particualr situation is ridiculous. Let me point something out about my statement "Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes" Anons. Move them. Not remove them, but move them. My precise problem with the vast majority of these votes are: They make it hard to "count votes", and more importantly, they either say very little otehr than 'keep' or they start yacking about bookburning, censorship, and other such things. This is a breach of WP:AGF and can be seen as an act of bad faith editing. Personal attacks, and things that look like them, are not part of the wikipedia way.--Tznkai 16:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. LisaFr

• User's first edit. (Contribs)

• Keep As a Christian, I vote to keep it. Ryan 06:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let's not forget who burned down the ancient library of Alexandria! The concern this member shows for this entry being deleted seems irrational and insincere. (Yes I'm a newbie, but not a "sock puppet". I've used Winipedia for information for quite some time and enjoy it's honest and eclectic attributes)-Jymi
• KEEP. I watched the movie, and have shown it to friends, they all agree it is one of the best (most accurate) documentaries made about the xtian faith, and it would be a shame to try and censor it out of public knowledge. Keep it. -Bighead

• Above vote by Bigheadface. User's first edit. (Contribs)

• Keep. Keep it.

• Above unsigned vote by Schultkl. User's first edit (Contribs)

• Keep. This is a powerful documentary which needs to have a reference in public domain.Vonrick

• Above vote initially made by 66.25.126.10, accidentally deleted by Khaosworks, and re-added and signed by Vonrick. User's first edit. (Contribs)

• Keep. It was a good movie. This is nothing more than a few religious people getting upset over nothing.

• Above unsigned vote by Aeiouy. User's first edit (Contribs)

• Keep. Censorship is not a good idea.

• Above unsigned vote by Ellimist. User's second edit (Contribs)

• Keep. Legitimate film. Deletion serves no purpose other than censorship. artofluke 14:13, 31 July 2005

• Above vote by Artofluke. User's first edit. (Contribs

• Keep I've seen it too. It's obvious when you watch it that certain groups of people would love to keep this work out of the public consciousness. I don't see what other reason than special interest censorship to take it off. Fando

• User's third edit. (Contribs)

• Keep. What's next book-burning? msallen

• User's first edit (Contribs)

• Keep The recent "copyright problem" notice attached to this entry is rather clearly frivolous. The text in question is not original to Microcinema but is instead a plot summary provided freely to anyone by the makers of the film. I know this because I wrote that summary and made the film. I would suggest Wikipedia users opposed to this movie should submit information about the controversy rather than trying to delete its entry. BrianFlemming 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:66.136.149.229 - 1st edits to Wikipedia. And why did you originally sign yoursekf as User:Doc? --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was not trying to arouse any paranoia. At first I copied and pasted from a previous entry to enter my own vote. I corrected the error within seconds, I believe. BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm not going to vote at this point, although I'd like to point out that the issue of copyright violation is one which we take very seriously. If the text is copied from somewhere else, then that's grounds to blank the article. We simply can't take someone's word for it that "oh, it's okay", because everything on Wikipedia is public domain; so rather than being copied from somewhere else, it has to be reworded. Maybe the copyvio allegation is valid, maybe it's false, I'm really not in the mood to do a comparison just now, so I'll leave that be. More importantly, though, for those of you who voted but are not registered users, I politely suggest that you read my my article explaining what you've done wrong. DS 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that you are not "in the mood" to do any research, as you say, but perhaps you could check out this link to see this statement: "Note: the text in this press kit is placed into the public domain and may be used elsewhere." We're talking here about re-use of a plot summary that is made freely available. Additionally, there is other material in this entry original to the entry. How could deleting this entire entry possibly be the right thing to do here? BrianFlemming
    • Ah, so it does and so it is; objection withdrawn. In addition, I'm in a better mood now, and I've read through the article, and I've compared it to the press kit, etc, and I have to say, I don't see any problem with keeping it. I would also like to kindly suggest to the many anonymous voters who are accusing us of being rabidly anti-atheist to please, consider that anyone can put any article up for VfD at any time (although if you do it maliciously, and repeatedly, you will be blocked from editing). All it takes is one person to suggest that it be deleted, and then we debate it, like we're doing now. And the process typically works; you'll note that the majority of the signed votes are pro-keep? So calm down, okay?DS 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

--216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This documentary is historically factual. Johara 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC).

  User's first edit (Contribs)

• Keep. JohnFitzpatrick

• User's fourth edit. (Contribs)

• Keep. Brian Flemming, the author of the movie, says he wants the entry to remain as is. The people who object are said to be Christians who object to the movie because it is blasphemy. Well, I saw the movie, it is a good movie, as an atheist I think it does a good job of representing my worldview.

• Above unsigned vote by EXJZDcsQsUsL. User's first edit. (Contribs)

• Keep. epepke
  • FYI, there seems to have been a coincidental crossover here with some users familiar with the Universist controversy. It's a separate issue, but the fact that every attempt to start an entry about the Universist Movement here has met with resistance from Wikipedia editors has fueled a perception that some Wikipedians organize to keep freethought from being acknowledged here. I'm not saying it's true, just noting the perception. I have to admit, I'm very perplexed about the multiple kills of the Universist entry. The Universists have had entire articles written about them in publications such as the New York Times, and as a member of the atheist community (but not of the Universists), I know that they are a major force. The assertion that the Universists are insignificant is clearly false, and it resembles the argument of Calton here that The God Who Wasn't There is an insignificant "straight to video" film. And it resembles Calton's false claim that Atheists of Silicon Valley is an insignificant group of only "local interest." There is a pattern here. All three of these claims of insignificance are false, and all three are attempts to spike Wikipedia acknowledgement of non-theist projects. Yes, there's a lot of smoke here (some of it unproductive, unwarranted and clearly casting the net of blame far too wide), but there's some fire. --BrianFlemming 18:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So far on the delete-side I have seen no real argument to remove this article, only emotion-based pleas. As a Christian I have nothing to fear from truth or reasoned discourse.

• Unsigned vote by Mdcaton. User's first edit (Contribs)

I'd just like to point out that there haven't BEEN any "emotion-based pleas" on the delete side; rather, there was a genuine question about whether the movie was notable, and about whether this was pure promotional fluff taken verbatim from a press release and pasted into an article in an effort to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium (yes it is, and no it isn't, respectively). We also addressed the possibility of the article being a copyright violation, which was resolved when the creator of the material in question pointed out that he was explicitly granting us permission. And there was one anonymous rant from someone who was probably a vandal, babbling about this being a Hippy Commune. This is what Vfd is FOR.

• Keep. FeloniousMonk 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. To Blu_Aardvark and those decrying the number of sock puppets here. That an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant to an article's actual value to the community. In other words, sock puppet support is not a valid justification for deleting an article. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody is voting to delete any article for the sole reason that sockpuppets have voted on it. In relation to THIS article, there are only two votes to delete - one by the nominator, and one by an anonymous troll. I, personally, have voted to keep this article.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep. This movie has attracted significant media attention and includes interviews from figures who also have their own articles on Wikipedia. It is notable. Ebonmuse 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Since there seems to be no copyvio, I see no real problem with the article. Though I don't know that the movie is extremely significant, I prefer to keep articles on things that meet at least minimum criteria for significance because I think it makes Wikipedia stronger than a normal encyclopedia. As for sockpuppets, I think it's okay for someone who has been using Wikipedia but may not have had an account (or even a total newbie) to join and cast a reasoned vote, but there clearly has been a totally emotional campaign to keep this article by people who don't understand Wikipedia and don't participate in the community. I hope that Brian Flemming has learned from this process, as he instigated at least some of the campaign on his blog. From what he says, I think he has. For the record, I say all this as someone who would almost certainly strongly disagree with the movie itself.Tox 06:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reasons to delete this article. JamesBurns 06:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ➥the Epopt 14:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (a real editor)

*Keep ➥the Epopt 14:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (a real editor)

[edit] Votes made by anon

• Keep. This is ridiculous. Christians shouldn't be allowed to start movements to supress atheistic viewpoints without some sort of reason behind it. "I'm a Christian and The God Who Wasn't There goes against my religion" should not cut it! Why this vote is even an issue to such a great site as Wikipedia is COMPLETELY beyond me. As Flemming said a bit down this page, this deletion is completely unwarranted. 3 August 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.110.46 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 August 2005

• First of all, nobody has claimed that this article shouldn't exist because it goes against their religious viewpoints. The only vote to delete this article thus far has been because of a question of notability - not one of religious differences. Stop with the censorship card already. It's far from productive. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep. Calton is also trying to delete the Atheists of Silicon Valley Wikipedia entry, so PLEASE go there and vote to keep it! Thanks. 30 July 2005

• Above vote by 68.127.10.153

• Keep Important historical and educational documentary. The user who voted to delete this entry clearly has an agenda, since he has attacked other atheist entries. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:63.199.245.18 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. And what other entries (note plural) have I "attacked"? --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen it - this film is groundbreaking and the article is accurate. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:206.45.186.15 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia.
• Keep What? Why in the world should this be deleted? It's an amazing documentary that should be required viewing. Yes, I suspect there is a Right-Wing agenda and trying to keep a legitimate film from the public. 30 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:66.136.149.229 - 1st and only edit edit to Wikipedia. I'm definitely seeing an agenda, all right. --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that Wikipedia readers shouldn't vote when someone attempts a clearly unwarranted deletion? BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I wrote that entry. Although not a "member" (I prefer not to join every website out there - seems to get me on spam lists), that doesn't mean I don't read and utilize the information presented. Susan W. 31 July 2005
    • For the record, registering as a member doesn't require that you provide your e-mail. Just so you know.

• Keep To delete this entry is to acknowledge that faith should not be challenged. It is pertinent that individuals always consider the alternative--to think for themselves. Flemming asks the viewer not to necessarily debunk one's own religious (or non-religious) leanings, but to question and to think critically...an entertaining and thought provoking piece. --star_firechild 31 July 2005
  • Unsigned vote by User:24.100.131.42 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. I'm definitely starting to see a pattern here. --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only is it a real film by a real filmmaker, it's stirred civil debates at various festival screenings; it's a noteworthy cultural event. dwhudson.
  • Unsigned vote by User:24.100.131.42 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. Cutting and pasting is fun! --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real film by a real filmmaker. There are plenty of other films listed on the Wikipedia, so why not this one?
  • Unsigned vote by User:81.164.51.164 - 1st and only edit to Wikipedia. Cutting and pasting is fun! --Calton | Talk 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Calton, you apparently missed the question here. It was, "There are plenty of other films listed on the Wikipedia, so why not this one?" BrianFlemming --216.175.79.153 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't miss it, but since it was an argument that would gotten a failing grade in a junior-high debating class, it didn't seem worth the bother. --Calton | Talk 00:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Calton, I'm not sure why you thought I was cutting and pasting since, when I posted the remark, the comments centered on either the fact that the film is listed on the IMDb or that the film has generated debates. The question I asked was more general, so let me try to clarify. If the Wikipedia is to include some films and not others then surely - in the interest of transparancy - there needs to be a published criterion for inclusion. What is that criteria? Paul - User:81.164.51.164
• Keep. Author of film is also the author of the passage accused of copyright violation. He authorizes the use of this text. Those pushing for deletion have a political/religious agenda. 2:20rm central, 31 July 2005 Michael Kozlowicz

• Above vote by 68.72.128.92

• KeepThere's no reason to delete this entry other than blatant censorship.

• Above vote by 71.0.89.28

• Keep I wouldn't vote to exclude fundamentalist or other religious films or material, so why should anyone else be able to vote this film out? Why would such an entry be subect to a popular vote anyway? The project should include information that is potentially useful to some consumers, period.

• Above vote by 68.103.207.165

• Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this, other than to censor the views expressed in the film. The fact that the same user tried to delete other Atheist pages is a giveaway.

• Above vote by 24.27.59.196

• Keep. It's an impressive documentary movie with many facts not commonly known.

• Above vote by 63.207.14.210

• Keep. Fight religious censorship. It's an impressive documentary movie with many insights and facts not commonly known. 1:28pm PT, 31 July 2005

• Above vote by 63.207.14.210

• Keep. I've bought and watched the movie and it's a good one. It should definitely be included on Wikipedia.

• Above vote by 63.150.80.252

• Keep Why is this even being considered for deletion? There is no legitimate purpose in censoring this entry - It is nothing more than an Orwellian attempt to whitewash Christian history in order to suit fundamentalist mentalities. The movie is brilliant. I hope Wikipedia is not considering deleting everything else in history that offends fundamentalists! -David Fitzgerald

• Above vote by 69.107.53.204

• Keep What reason do they even have to delete this? -Ryan Baker

• Above vote by 67.164.22.35

• Keep This movie is very noteworthy. It thoughtfully challenges the largest "organization" in the world. Wrong or right, it is worthy of an article. - Sam Adams (Yes, that is my real name.)

• Above vote by 68.219.224.244

• Keep Valuable article. -Jeremy Bort

• Above vote by 24.19.195.53

• Keep There are already plenty of articles about movies on wikipedia. I don't see any reason to make an exception for this one. -66.245.59.239
• Keep. God really isn't there.

• Above vote by 68.150.254.248

• Keep. Those who oppose this entry, and this film are merely afraid that their beliefs might be wrong - too afraid to face even the possibility that they may be wrong. -Darrell Lunsford

• Above vote by 12.219.211.139

• Keep. Please keep this article. You can't censor articles just because you disagree with them. Plus, the movie is correct!

• Above vote by 68.230.133.181

• Keep. Wikipedia people, please don't be cowered into going down the 'slippery slope' of censorship to please a few who had their religious feathers ruffled.

• Above vote by 66.82.9.82

• Keep. In a very logical fashion, this movie brings to the forefront a sobering set of questions about the origins of christianity. What is interesting is that attempts to delete this movie reference from Wikipedia closely parallel the documentary's assertions about how church leaders throughout time have tried to deflect people's attention away from what really happened in that first century; even more compelling given that all of the clues are right there in the Bible itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.196.59 (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 1, 2005 UTC
• KEEP. Please stop this blatant attempt at censorship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.152.51 (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 1, 2005 UTC
• DELETE THIS PLACE IS TURNING INTO A HIPPY COMUNE AS IT IS!!! get this out of here, shame I'll be over ruled by these pathetic pinko sockpuppteers

• Above vote by 205.188.116.73

• Keep. No censorship. Especially by religious extremists

• Above unsigned vote by 66.147.102.37

• Keep

• Above unsigned vote by 216.51.218.25

• Keep the article.

• Above unsigned vote by 199.46.200.230

• Keep!! The information in the documentary speaks for itself. You shouldn't censor facts that don't appeal to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.113.81.62 (talk • contribs) 16:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, reality is not a democracy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.187.15 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 August 2005
• Keep, What are they afraid of? A few less monies in the collection plate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.0.10 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 August 2005
• Keep, This documentary is factual and thought-provoking. Why would we want to censor that?--Delta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.183 (talk • contribs) 3 August 2005

• Nobody has claimed that this movie is not factual or though-provoking, or that there is a desire to censor it. The question is one of notability, not accuracy. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)}

• keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.46.163 (talk • contribs) 24.233.46.163

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 & Redirect. Essjay · Talk 12:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The gallows

Non-notable online group of games. Seems to have fewer than 10 members. Doesn't seem to have done anything particularly notable even within the gaming world. Delete. DES 06:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Teenage guy and his two friends. Does not even rise to the level of a garage band. --MarkSweep 06:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gallows; no merge, because this is non notable. CanadianCaesar 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per CanadianCaesar. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then create a redirect to Gallows. Vanity. Robert A West 21:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gallows. JamesBurns 05:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 20:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persian or Farsi?

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Ass Tuqe

Google search for "Black Ass Tuqe" and google search for "Tuqe Shaker" result in no hits. Non-notable.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete - with some regret. It's Patent Nonsense, but entertaining Patent Nonsense. crazyeddie 07:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not patent nonsense, but garbage nonetheless. —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Amusingly, though, 70.118.123.240 does seem to have a lot to contribute to this article and is not the least bit deterred by the VfD notice! —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or just impale the author on a large spike, either would be satisfactory. DavidH 08:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slightly humorous fiction. Ken 13:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense/joke. --Etacar11 02:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedia material. William Avery 16:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email Triage and Image:Email Triage.pdf

No worthwhile content. Simply target times for dealing with email that one particular group have proposed. -- RHaworth 07:54:04, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

• Delete in current state looks more like a forum WP:NOT a forum. ∞Who?¿? 07:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forum discussion, not verifiable, not encyclopedic. Robert A West 21:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a mess more than anything. ral315 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addingtouch.com

Unable to verify notability, appears to be an advertisement. --Alan Au 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising spam; nothing less, nothing more. The screenshot of the website is a nice touch, though. —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Adspam. Hopefully the image gets nuked, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and I wish it could be speedy. spam. Robert A West 21:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Adspam. --Sleepyhead81 21:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please take a look at the discussion page. --Minshullj 11:25, 31 July 2005 (EDT)
• Delete, not notable, adspam. Mmmbeer 01:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 16:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reading spark plugs for racing

This was transwikied by this VFD vote, then deleted as redundant with this Wikibook. However, it was pointed out on WP:VFU that the Wikibook is outdated, and that this may be encyclopedic after all. So it's now undeleted and procedurally listed here. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 09:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• By all means, Transwiki it over. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "transwiki" is not a sensible option here. The transwiki has already been done, and this article has already circled through transwiki back to VFD once. Please choose something else. Uncle G 15:18:54, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
    • Then 'delete. It's been transwikied, and WP:ISNOT a how-to guide. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• In the VFU discussion it was asserted that the Wikibook was outdated. However, that assertion was false. As per the transwiki logs, and the edit history recorded at Wikibooks, the article was transwikied only 9 days ago, on 2005-07-21, and contains all modifications to the Wikipedia article up to 2005-06-23, the last modification before it was flagged for deletion at the end of the transwiki process. In the VFU discussion, Samw later retracts that assertion, pointing out that xe had taken the lack of images in Wikibooks to mean that the article was different, when in fact it was not. The images had simply been uploaded by the original author to the wrong place. They had been uploaded to Wikipedia, and not been uploaded to Commons, even though they were public domain and should have been. Thus they didn't automatically appear in the transwikied article. Uncle G 15:18:54, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
• Delete. This task-oriented page is a much better fit on the Wikibooks How-to bookshelf than it is here. The differences between the version at the close of the first vfd and the current version are no improvement in this respect. —Cryptic (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written, informative. Note that although some do not like how-tos in Wikipedia (which would have astonished Diderot), there is no policy against them. See Wikipedia:How-to. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • NPOV would also have astonished Diderot. Robert A West 21:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Dpbsmiths' surprising revelation. Kappa 19:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The content is already in Wikibooks, which is a much better place for it, and if it needs to be updated there, update it. Wikipedia:How-to is not policy either. Robert A West 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just make sure it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. - SimonP 23:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Per my comments on the votes for undeletion, I (& I'm sure the original author) would be happy to rework it so long as we get some feedback. I like the "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" comment. I'll start with that. Samw 03:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrote Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing#Reading_spark_plug_conditions. If that's reasonable to most, I can work on the rest of the article as well. Samw 03:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I have learned how to do many things from various encyclopedia, there is no reason this shouldn't be in one too-=Motorhead 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pawn to queen

It's not even notable fanfic in the context of Potter fandom, let alone an encyclopedic topic. Smells like vanity/advertising. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Nothing but a pair of links. Harro5 09:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Right.--ThomasK 10:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn fanfic. Ken 13:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fanfic in general can be assumed to be non-notable. It would have to be published in an officially licensed book (like Strange New Worlds for Star Trek) to be even remotely notable. — JIP | Talk 19:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Vanity. Robert A West 21:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then stomp on the little torn up pieces afterwards. Nandesuka 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fanfic. --Etacar11 02:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable fanfic --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfic. Vashti 13:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete & Redirect. Essjay · Talk 12:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghetto superstar

nn Eclipsed 09:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
but now I agree with Redirect as suggsted below. Eclipsed 11:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even BJAODN material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes.--ThomasK 09:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ghetto Supastar the 1998 Pras Michael album. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalistroadster. --TheMidnighters 18:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Boy, I loved that song when I was younger. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Always down with the ghetto walk. -BrowardBillionaire 20:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Etacar11 02:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn unencyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested above. Aecis 00:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Note: In order to merge material, the original page must be kept as a redirect in order to avoid GFDL violations. (See WP:GVFD) A page cannot be deleted after a merge, as this will remove the page history pertinent to the merged text. As such, I am interpreting this vote as a Delete; if anyone wishes to perform a merge to exopolitics, please let me know and I will undelete. Essjay · Talk 00:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Salla

Delete POV, relevance. May simply be self-promotion or promotion for a website. Some of this may be moved to exopolitics. Marskell 10:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I second that. Clever self promotion is still promotion. Article is a semi-serious gateway to a lunatic website, and does not add anything constructive to the wiki. Adidas 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I agree that some this needs to be moved to exopolitics. Skawave 20:42, 04 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete FYI mr. Salla was asked to resign his university post cause of his exopolitics stuff--it doesn't appear that he did and not that that should disqualify him from here but I don't think he's really taken seriously and having an encylcopedia introduce him as a "pioneer" in the "field" of exoplotics is a little much. All his "published" stuff on the topic is just his site! Google hits are just copies of the wikipedia entry. 165.21.154.11 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 12:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technolotics

Non-notable podcast, vanity, created by user:Dbspin, curiously the same name as the website this links to. Delete or userfy. Flowerparty ^talk 12:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Nandesuka 22:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elder ages

Not notable. Alexa rank 88,740, Google hits for "Elder ages" game around 923, not all relevent. Although, compared to this users' other edits ( [11], [12]) this is grand. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. spam. POV. Robert A West 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — I was unable to find any evidence that this game is at all notable, and the article completely fails to establish such. Instead it's mostly a how-to guide. :) — RJH 00:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just a web game of little significance, and 1000 users (which is unsubstantiated) isn't very many at all. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grafixology

Not notable. [13] Does not even claim notability. brenneman^(t)(c) 13:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete. not notable. ad. Mmmbeer 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete spam. admits nn. Robert A West 21:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 13:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Holly

Not notable. No IMDB listing, her webpage has Alexa of 68,660, and Google is 37,300. Note that the last number inflated by high profile of pr0n on net, compare to 910,000 for Jenna Jameson. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Shes an internet only model, so the reference to the imdb is meaningless, and her growth in popularity in the last 6 months has been astounding. To compare her to JJ whose been in the industry for years is a nonsense. (Unsigned comment by 195.92.168.164)

• Another dimeadozen porn "star". Delete as non-notable. Denni☯ 18:15, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Delete, and maybe somebody should set up WP:PR0N to make notability standards for porn stars :) Radiant_>|< 21:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [14] - --Haham hanuka 08:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears notable. JamesBurns 05:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax ^τεχ 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Driver

Not notable. An article about a school principal in Hong Kong. Mmmbeer 13:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as vanity. --TheMidnighters 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Having read the Wikipedia policy, I (the creator of the page) am now tempted to remove the page too. Perhaps, a redirect to the West Island School page would be better? Or just leave it completely? --Mintchocicecream 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. --Sleepyhead81 22:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy: as per request from author. --Ragib 23:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seb cox

Not notable. Google for "Seb cox" gives 858 hits, and his homepage Alexa rank is 160,581. brenneman^(t)(c) 14:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --TheMidnighters 18:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.samtrimble.com

Delete. Is this advertising? We don't even have an article on Sam Trimble yet. If he is notable, create the article, then link to Trimble's web page from there. Aleph4 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It is now on the "speedy deletion" track. -- Aleph4 16:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mofunzone

Appears to be a vanity website page. [[smoddy]] 15:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Beat me to it. Delete, vanity,Sabine's Sunbird 15:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If I read the incoherent collection of comments correctly, it is not a vanity page but an attack on the web site's business practices. Either way, it should be deleted. DS1953 19:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Krougman

nn blogger vanity. Delete. Ken 16:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn vanity. Punkmorten 15:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pornosaurus

Neologism. Lots of google hits, but not in a context indicating that this is what the word means; rather, it's just a fairly obvious portmanteau. DS 16:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Feed to the Deleteasaurus Neologism, dictadef, just plain dumb. Sabine's Sunbird 16:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I haven't googled for it, but I would bet on some webmaster making a porn site with the name. — JIP | Talk 19:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't recall seeing that one at the museum of natural history... - Thatdog 21:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated, but I must say it made me laugh. CanadianCaesar 00:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it because it seems like a sensible definition. b0men 00:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Above is only contribution of 210.211.74.150. b0men has no contribution history.

• Delete neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ral315 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual brain

I believe that this page constitutes original research. Delete. Lupin 16:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Definite tinfoil-hattery, but being pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion. Not establishing notability or citing any references, however, is. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research at best. Robert A West 21:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ebola Monkey

Hoax. How ridiculous. [[smoddy]] 16:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Ebola Monkey is a real concept, please do not vote for deletion based on ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.71.149 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nominator, and the redirect Ebola monkey. --TheMidnighters 18:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm glad this guy doesn't live next door to me. Denni☯ 18:29, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Delete Personal essay --malathion ^talk 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I saw something about this on Discovery a little while back. Didn't know someone were using it though. Apparently it was conceived by some Austrian psychologists, trying to figure out how to scare people from commiting crimes. Santaphile 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edits. [[smoddy]] 19:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Smoddys first edit
• Delete. Hoax, original "research". I've read some disturbing things this week, but that one takes the cake. Grotesque. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke page? hoax. --Ragib 19:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Urk. That's pretty wrong. humblefool® 19:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not fiction, it has been used at the Guantanamo Base ever since George Bush became president.

• Note: Duplicate vote by 192.38.71.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --Ragib 19:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Font 02:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really. --Sn0wflake 16:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. DS1953 16:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and advise author to think happy thoughts and daydream about fluffy bunnies instead of dwelling on questions of how to carry out executions with "Ebola Monkeys". — Trilobite (Talk) 17:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. ral315 21:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV essay with no apparent factual content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 21:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Messenger

This does not warrant a Wikipedia article.

• Searching for "My Messenger" in Google finds the result low in the list.
• It also finds another piece of IM software by the same name [15].
• Baupuli's web site has a guestbook [16] with only 109 entries, nearly all of which are about his musical software, and not the instant messenger.

It thus seems that the article is for vanity only. Delete --jnothman ^talk 16:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is vanity the right word? Advertising maybe. See Special:Contributions/202.137.209.47. --jnothman ^talk 03:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments on My Messenger

• My Messenger is in ODP, dmoz.org for both the queries, My Messenger and Bapuli. [[17]] [[18]]
• Google finds a lot of entries because of the "my" word used.

• The program is not vanity and works well (it is a freeware), see

[19].

• People use Yahoo Messenger and they dont need anything for LANs. So, they are not very much interested in writing in the guestbook. This doesn't mean that the program is vanity.

Keep. --Debasish 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This vote was actually added by 202.137.209.47 (talk · contribs), see here, and Debasish (talk · contribs) has 0 edits.

• Delete. Advert. Flowerparty ^talk 17:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad for non-notable product. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it is freeware, it is still spam. Robert A West 22:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity advert. -mysekurity 23:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert -- Font 03:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• I initially started this article, However, I want to delete it. kindly delete this article. Please delete it. I don't need it anymore.

--User:Debasish 06:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This vote was again added by 202.137.209.47 (talk · contribs). [20]

• • Comment: it's far easier to register an actual username than to change your signature to make it look like you've registered. Also, please stop blanking the page. Flowerparty ^talk 12:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. How to delete this? --202.137.209.47 13:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Debasish

Votes for deletion are closed after five days, which is supposed to give the community time to debate and research the topic and if necessary improve the article, etc. See Dpbsmith's comment at the bottom of this page for a more eloquent explanation. Flowerparty ^talk 13:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Teen Podcasters Network

Non-notable, vanity. tregoweth 16:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Nandesuka 22:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zlatiborian

Page was missed in cleaning up an apparent hoax that included the following VfDs: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zlatiborians, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zlatiborian speech, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zlatiborian literature, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Institute for the Zlatiborian language and literature. --Allen3 ^talk 16:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Allen3. ral315 21:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Keegan

Vanity page. --TheParanoidOne 17:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Vanity or attack article. - Longhair | Talk 17:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible I see no assertion of notability, doesn't this qualify for speedy? Friday 20:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It was because of the digital rights stuff that I dodn't tag this as speedy. I made a comment on the talk page in the hopes that it would help expand on the potential notability. Unfortunately, it didn't. --TheParanoidOne 21:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline speedy although the digital rights campaigner may save him from that fate. Delete. Capitalistroadster 20:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rotting squirell

Apparent band vanity. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, no allmusic, no ability to spell "squirrel" . Delete Friday 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete and let rot Shantavira 17:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The (apparent) article author has been removing the VfD. sigh. Friday 18:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bandity --malathion ^talk 19:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Exactly one Google hit. From the blog of one of the band members. Vanity / bandcruft. Delete. -- The Anome 19:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I would have speedied it for utter ridiculousness. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Plus the apparent author has been vandalising user pages this morning. Vashti 07:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogje

• delete : diminuative for blog : nonsense Aleichem 17:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --TheMidnighters 18:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -mysekurity 23:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 13:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Lawrence

Google is unhelpful in identifying this person, except in a search for "John Lawrence""Joel Rifkin". Other than for his failed attempt to defend Rifkin, he appears non-notable. Denni☯ 17:42, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Delete I'd normally be against the google standard for this kind of thing, but there is no content in this article anyway. Let someone else recreate a better version. --malathion ^talk 19:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 13:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Edwin Klein Jr.

Page was listed as speedy for no claim of notability. Being drafted by a major league baseball team is a claim to notability. I'm not voting at this time. Pburka 17:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, drafted by a major league baseball team. Kappa 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. How many of the 1200-plus players drafted ahead of him have entries? Can I list my grandfather? He patented something, and that's US government-certified notability. Monicasdude 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- what separates Barry Bonds from Klein? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all athletes who make it to the pros. Sure, there's thousands of them, but Wikipedia has over 660,000 articles, so I see no problem there. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

But he hasn't made it to the pros yet. Article doesn't even say he signed. Is everybody who signs a minor league sports contract going to get an entry? Why is this different than giving every patentholder an entry? Monicasdude 15:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as the article suggests, he has been drafted by the Los Angeles Angels in the 41st round of the 2005 amateur draft. Presumably he will be playing minor league baseball for a few years before he makes the big leagues. Given that baseball has an extensive minor league, our criterion should be at least playing major league baseball. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Being drafted by a major league team in any major sport is clearly a claim of notability--whoever nominated this for speedy was clearly in error. But it's not a very good claim. Delete until he actually plays in the major leagues, or at least has a good minor league career. Meelar (talk) 18:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been thinking about this one for a while, trying to come up with a good reason to keep it, but I think that Meelar (talk · contribs) and Capitalistroadster (talk · contribs) are right. Pburka 21:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (I know I voted, but the decision was unanimous). Essjay · Talk 14:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Korn

Wow, I'm honoured. I guess there is a precedent for this (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Angela Beesley), but I don't think I'm quite that notable. I guess it could be userfied... The article is also horrendously POV (though I admit it is my POV) and inaccurate (1. I'm not 16½ 2. cricket is not an extreme sport, although maybe vandal-whacking is 3. My Esperanto is very basic and my Latin only moderate...) I am, however, rather worried that it has taken this long for the page to be nominated for VfD. Nevertheless, I thank my fan club anon for my tribute. Delete. [[smoddy]] 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This entry shouldn't be deleted. Muddy deserves all the glory, and it might be POV but it is the publics POV, and hence it should stay.
  • "Muddy", apparently, is me. [[smoddy]] 18:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a Wikipedian, even an admin at 16½ years, doesn't make one notable. — JIP | Talk 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy No claim of notability --malathion ^talk 19:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But it isn't vanity! It's a kind of weird tribute. I am Sam Korn... [[smoddy]] 19:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No, I am Sam Korn, smoddy is an imposter! Fernando Rizo T/C 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't someone be saying "I am Sam Korn, and so is my wife!" at this point? — JIP | Talk 19:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• The real Sam Korn died in 1987, he did among other a lot of work on the Ebola Monkey theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtuinDK (talk • contribs) July 30, 2005 19:25 UTC

• Delete, possibly Speedy: Joke page. --Ragib 19:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with User:Smoddy ;) -- Joolz 19:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Do you really need another delete vote, or has consensus been reached? Ah well, delete, per your wishes. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• If Smoddy wants it deleted, who are we to argue? Delete. (And he's obviously never seen me play cricket if he thinks it's not an extreme sport :) Grutness...wha? 01:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And you've evidently never seen me play if you think it is! [[smoddy]] 10:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but you're a good guy, Smoddy. :) --Etacar11 03:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I suppose we can keep Smoddy if he promises to live up to the expectations of his fans. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I promise. How could I not, after a tribute so touching? *sniff* [[smoddy]] 13:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (how many votes does it take to actually implement this obvious decision?) ZephyrAnycon 18:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! (note to above: things will very rarely be deleted once they've arrived here for a formal VfD) --Vamp:Willow 19:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. The world must know about the latest extreme sports/language prodigy! :P Ryan 20:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article, and draw and quarter smoddy. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 07:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Targhetto

Neologism; Google shows it does not have broad currency Denni☯ 18:08, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

A Google search revealed tons of relevant matches. This page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.56.114 (talk • contribs) 18:36 UTC, 2005 August 1

• Please do not edit the comments of other users to reflect your own opinion. It is considered vandalism and has been recorded in this document's history. Denni☯ 20:37, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
• Delete. User seems to have vendetta against Target. ral315 21:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Friday 23:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Essjay · Talk 14:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palackal

This appears to be autobiography by the newcomer Yawsep. I have left a note to this effect on his talk page (along with a welcome), but I don't think this article looks encyclopaedic. Gareth Hughes 18:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficiently notable. --malathion ^talk 18:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self-promotion. JamesBurns 06:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am familiar with J. Palackal's earlier work on the musical study of Arnos Paathiri's Puththenpaana (see the references in the article which I have contributed on Arnos Paathiri). I can affirm that his work in that matter carries great distinction; it is a record of certain hallowed but sadly neglected cultural traditions among the Christians of Kerala (who have a history which extends to the apostles) and, as far as I am aware, it remains the only treatise on the topic. I did not know about the recent Ph. D. thesis that is mentioned in the biographical article, but I can deduce from the title the likely content; this is again, I think, a weighty topic (very different from the previous one), and I don't think there has been any study at all of Syriac music in Kerala, in spite of its great antiquity. I have felt that he is a scholar of moment, and also that his works are important to the future of an ancient culture. I also know of some of the activities of the Christian musicological society of India, which he heads: it has continued to play a significant part in moulding the Christian community in Kerala, chiefly through the study and innovative application of music and its traditions as a cultural medium. He certainly deserves a wikipedia article. I do not think the article should be deleted even if autobiographical (which I am unable to deduce for certain); what is written as of now is not biased or inappropriate, and I think it is only a fragment of what could be written about him. Italo 23:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yeat

An expression with local currency only.Denni☯ 18:43, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Delete, far too narrow scope to be encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 19:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this valid information Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a local expression, but not as local as the article makes it seem. "Yeat" is recognized by most people from northeast Mass., as each town has its own phrase. Perhaps this article could become part of a bigger article about the call phrases of different towns in Essex county during WWII. (by Benghis 19:17, 1 August 2005 - user's first, and so far only, edit)
  • Good idea - such an article would be an interesting and valuable addition. Would you be willing to take it on? Denni☯ 00:26, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nominator and JIP. Nabla 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn local expression. JamesBurns 06:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets_-_Full_Plot_Summary

Page is redundant and its information is displayed elsewhere. The information presented on this page is duplicated in more appropriate places. The new Harry Potter Wikibook handles plot summaries now. Each book page provides concise summaries with links to the extensive summaries on the Wikibook. This is a part of the attempt to only have concise summaries on the Wikipedia pages and leave all extensive synopses to the Wikibook. The previous concensus was that this page is inappropriate. Matt 18:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the plot summary belongs on a separate page. Kappa 19:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates effort made at Wikibooks, which is prominently linked to on the Wikipedia Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets article. If the plot synopsis on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is lacking, then merge. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted articles cannot be merged. Kappa 20:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I was offering an alternative to deletion with sentence. Sorry if you misunderstood it. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• TransWiki to WikiBooks and delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We already have a plot summary on Wikipedia and one on Wikibooks. No point in merging. If section redirects worked, I would propose. Robert A West 22:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:FICT excessive plot summeries are a bad idea. DES 22:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DES James 23:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DES. Ken 00:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DES. K1Bond007 05:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm against hiving off things into offshoot projects. Much better to have everything in one place. CalJW 14:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikibooks is the place for something as detailed as this. A short synopsis is all that's needed for WIkipedia. --Deathphoenix 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And while the deleting admin deletes it, please delete Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary and Harry Potter (plot) for the same reasons; they've both already been copied for safekeeping to Wikibooks.
  • I agree that those pages should be deleted. To the admin however, could the plot page be postponed for the moment? There are MANY links pointing there and those need to be repaired. Once that completes a VFD for the plot page can be submitted. -Matt 15:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The plot summary is not its own entity. It does not deserve its own page. A sufficient summary is already at Chamber of Secrets. Superm401 | Talk 07:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and make a redirect to There she is!! TonyJoe 11:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There She Is

There are currently two entries on the SamBakZa flash animation "There she is!! ",(also correctly titled with two exclamation marks) Comparing the two, and meaning no offense to it's author "There she is!!" is simply a better article than "There She Is".

When discussing the actual history and hits that the animation has received There she is!! offers actual numbers and awards while There She Is simply says it's popular. The plot synopsis is also more detailed and the themes of the film are better articulated in the former than in the latter. So in conclusion I think that There she is should be completely deleted, unless of course anyone thinks that there are some salvagable parts that could be taken from it and merged with There She Is!! 68.162.1.17 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge from There She Is!! (any important unique content), leaving There She Is!! as a redirect --Mysidia 06:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make a redirect to There she is!!. I have merged into There she is!! and There she is!! Step 2 - Cake Dance the parts of this article that were not already in there. The other articles should be considered to be more authoritative, since they predate this one, both have higher quality writing, and have more textual/graphical content. --Bovineone 00:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to There she is!!, as per Bovineone (hope it's not too late to vote). Cursive 04:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Burundi. Splash 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burundis

List of a few characters (lacking description) from a Mexican TV show. humblefool® 19:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Burundi. I believe that Burundis is the name for this country in some European languages (German and Latvian?), so it's a reasonable misspelling. If the TV show needs an article, it should be named El Reto Burundis and should contain more context. Pburka 02:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect although the tv show is "el reto burundis" the characters/cartoons originated much earlier as some webpage known about young people in spanish talking world (web greeting cards). Perhaps if a decent article is created, (it'd be like an article on teletubbies to put a simil), a disambig page would be in order. meanwhile, redirect. drini ☎ 04:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burundi. Revolución 04:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble tea supply

Advert for a non-notable company. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional delete Unless they produce the "numerous" features on television and radio, and I don't mean paid ads. --malathion ^talk 19:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete, probably speedy. There was a vote over this awhile ago, I do believe. Mmmbeer 01:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apalachee, the Spanish, and Catholicism

This page has no real reason to exist and should be deleted. I'm moving the information to the Apalachee page. --JW1805 19:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if any new information is moved to the main article. Vegaswikian 05:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 06:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Moving discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion --Allen3 ^talk 20:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Soviet spies

List consists of names found in KGB files and other sources. Most have not been confirmed as Soviet Spies, merely that information from them turned up in KGB files, not the same thing Cberlet 19:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Keep but rename to "Suspected Soviet Spies". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Keep TDC 20:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Im in ur base

Your traditional NN dicdef. [[smoddy]] 20:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am in your base... voting delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• We get signal... and it says Delete --malathion ^talk 22:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Robert A West 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move every delete for great justice. -- MrBland 00:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Mmmbeer 01:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as is... might have some relevance in the Leet article. 192.250.97.6 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Essjay · Talk 14:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silver-copper nitrate

We don't need an article for every compound/chemical reaction. [[smoddy]] 20:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• undecided. We do have a whole Category:Nitrates. -- Austrian 21:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, good article Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — I think this is a technique for refining silver. It's a fairly simple reaction so I don't see why it couldn't be kept and expanded. — RJH 00:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Expand and cleanup. For example, language like "you will" isn't very encyclopedic. Mmmbeer 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a simple example of a redox reaction. There is just no way that this experimental procedure can be turned into something encyclopedic. Pilatus 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Redwolf24 14:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was RELIST. Splash 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Keep-

I find this an extremely valuable topic -- so much so that I just spent my whole day creating a well-linked wikified page based on Connie Barlow's version (including a whole page on Thomas Berry), only to come back and find that someone has created a stripped down version. While I think it has been stripped down a bit too much, it is probably a good holder for now. It is hard to find anything objectionable in it. It can be expanded to be more substantive and useful later, but it is best to start small, I say. I've been writing a lot on this subject lately and, as a blogger, I love to use Wikipedia to provide links to unusual concepts that are poorly summarized elsewhere on the web. So this is a fabulous resource for me. -- Blindeagle cii at igc dot org

Keep-

   Modifications are a good idea for it to fit as a Wiki article, but overall, 

definitely keep. This is a popular topic and it would look bad if we were

silent on it.

-Dr. Jon Cleland Host  (equinoxjjh@yahoo.com)

This is of great importance. For the first time there is a story that can be shared across religions, cultures, international boundaries based on recent scientific discovery. It should definitely be part of Wikipedia. Frances Lorenz (lorenzmf@AOL.com)

Keep but modify The topic is valuable, but even as rewritten by Connie it does not read as a factual/review sort of encyclopedia entry but as a pretty strong advocacy essay for the concept, and with expressions that come across as fairly pronounced hype. I think that might explain some of the discomfort reactions. It may also actually put off a signficant proportion of readers rather than pulling them in. Advocacy is fine on one's own site, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia on which people can rely for neutral and objective information. I think the article should be rewritten to remove the advocacy and hype and to appear and indeed be more or less neutral. I know that's tough for someone deeply involved in the subject, but it might help to imagine oneself as an academic - just describing this concept and its development and versions (theist and non-theist) to their students as one approach out of many. If there have been any critiques of The Great Story approach, mentioning them would also help. Paul Harrison harrison at dircon dot co dot uk

Keep - While there might be a better way to Wikify it the consciousness expressed is far to important to not be in the Wikipedia. Over time, that clean up will take place.

Jim Brauner - jimbrauner@earthlink.net

KEEP The subject matter is critically important to the level of Copernicus, Davinci, Newton and Einstein as to how and why phyical science discoveries have a direct effect on the social aspect of humans and earth itself.

Robert Nemanich rwnemanich@mychi.com

[edit] The Great Story

Keep The Great Story is the story of the human relationship to the Earth and the universe through time. Telling the Great Story entails tracing life back to its roots and highlighting the many miraculous occurrences along the way that make it possible for us to be having this discussion. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for a synopsis introducing the public to the Great Story and the thought that has gone into its discovery and dissemination. Brian Higbie (gringodelanoche@hotmail.com)

Unencyclopedic personal essay, possibly original research. --malathion ^talk 20:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In the first sentence of the article, it says it was coined by Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme in their 1992 book, "The Universe Story". When a source is stated how can it be original research? Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • But it still seems to be worthy of a delete vote. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• It is not the term that is OR, but the article discussing it is either a recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interpretation of that book (OR). Either way, delete. Robert A West 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless, of course, someone comes up with a reasonable semblance of an NPOV, researched article. Robert A West 22:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The above readers have misunderstood the importance of the Great Story entry. The Great Story is the story of a new cosmology for all the people of planet Earth. The Great STory is the first time in human history that all human beings have the same cosmology. It is also a story that heals the rift between science and relgion. The Great Story brings together into one narrative everything science has learned about our source in the twentieth century. For the first time we know all the molecules and atoms in our bodies were created in the explosion of a star. We were all "out there" at one time. So were all the other animals and plants on this Earth. We were out there in the forms of atoms and minerals. That means we are all intimately connected - all of us every plant and every animal. This is terribly important and perfect for Wikipedia. Bill Bruehl, bbruehl@bellsouth.net Preceding unsigned comment by 65.4.153.7 The essay is neither the recounting of one book nor the editors interpretation of one book. It is, rather, a short introduction to a fairly large body of research. See here: http://www.thegreatstory.org/what_is.html Michael Dowd, co-editor of entry<mbdowd@bigplanet.com>cell: 425-760-9941 204.210.56.185 (talk · contribs))

It is a complex concept that embodies an evolutionary advance forging the meaning of physical science and mythology of humans, but it should be shortened. As for deleting it altogether it would be analagous to deleting references to Copernicus on 1600.(Unsigned comment by 67.37.50.91 (talk · contribs))

• Comment: The problem is that it is too complex. Rewriting it so that it is easier for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand it may make it more likely to be kept. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article is not OR (as noted by Sonic Mew above) nor is it a "recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interepretation of that book (OR)." The editor(s) of the article, Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, are both published authors and are well known for their leading role in explaining and disseminating information from many diverse sources the various and evolving contributions to the "Great Story." Barlow is a scientist and science writer (Evolution Extended (MIT Press), The Ghosts of Evolution (Basic Books), Green Space, Green Time (Copernicus), et al. Dowd is the author of Earth Spirit: A Handbook for Nurturing an Ecological Christianity and he has written many articles and presented "The Great Story" to many faith traditions. The Great Story has inspired many others: authors, scientists, artists, musicians (even a rap artist), educators (especially Montessori teachers), economists (David Korten, e.g.) children's books (Jennifer Morgan's Born with a Bang and From Lava to Life), and many others. Regarding Day/Night or Left Brain/Right Brain thinking, see Leonard Shlain's The Alphabet vs the Goddess: the Conflict between Word and Image; or more philosophically, see Gregory Bateson's Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Mainstream? Not yet. The Gaia Hypothesis, first proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, and first published by Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Review in 1975, remains controversial 30 years later but it has stimulated a whole new field of "earth systems" and inspired "deep ecology" and "ecofeminism." The Great Story is similarly a seminal idea that is challenging our past views of the relationship, or lack thereof, between science and religion. Debate about the Great Story is welcome, but for those who are skeptical, please consider learning more about it at www.thegreatstory.org. Chuck Lynd <Lynd.7@osu.edu>

I've already expressed my support of this topic in the discussion section, but for what it's worth I will vote for it again here. The Great Story metaphors are provocative and worthy of discussion groups in education, philosophy, and theology. I have followed the writing and speaking of Great Story proponents since 1997 and have been impressed at its adaptability to the theological frameworks of religiously progressive congregations. John Brewer <jbrewer@sunflower.com>

• This has certainly attracted a lot of anons. The trouble is that the article does not make it clear what "The Great Story" actually is. thegreatstory.org did make it slightly clearer to me, but the article stil does not do enough for those unfamiliar with the subject. Rewrite the articleto make it clearer, then come back to defend it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

It doesn't seem to be within Wiki policy to delete something simply because you don't understand it. ...or because it may appear to challenge your religous belief. Wiki policy states:

You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if:

   * a nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant.

Presumably, that would mean that recommending a page for deletion would be included in the above policy.

In other words, I might suggest that Pokemon pages, for example, be deleted because I can not comprehend the appeal and find no value to humanity for them. Those pages seem like commercial advertising rather than an encyclopaedic entry.

• • But it is the fact that this article cannot be comprehended in its present form that makes it deleteable. This is not about comprehending the appeal of "The Great Story". It is the fact that it is not written to help those unfamiliar with the subject understand it. If you can't do that, then this does not deserve to stay. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Massive, massive, massive cleanup. I think that it is impossible to tell whether this is encyclopedic in the current form. Also, this just stinks of possible copyvio. It reads like an essay, it's not wikified, it's not in good form, it has tons of POV. I think that a vote on this right now is really inappropriate. Mmmbeer 01:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons given, but clean up to put it into Wiki style. KHerbst August 1, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. < Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

I vote Keep but to have it put into Wiki style, whatever that is. This is a powerful story and movement providing an inspiring integrative view of the universe, planet, human informing both science and religion globally.

I also vote for Wiki to develop a more intuitive easy human interface for keeping,voting, posting etc to promote this interesting concept. See Craigslist for better ideas on how to do this. Also CD Baby has gotten this concept down pretty well. 8/05 Alan Tower [edit]

KEEP Having read so many, many books that reference the beautiful combining of science and mysticism,and the need for a living cosmology; it is hard to believe this concept would be unfamiliar. The Great Story transcends all religions but one source would be books by Christian theologian, Matthew Fox. In Fox's The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, p. 132 he speaks of mindfulness. "It opens their minds and hearts to the universe, to what is and to where we are: citizens of a vast twenty-billion-year history that is still unfinished and which we are called to complete; citizens of a universe of one hundred billion galaxies, of which ours is a mysteriously small one." 206.162.192.39 15:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Susan Heitzman

KEEP That folks are unfamiliar with the Great Story concept is precisely why it is so important to have an article like this in Wiki. I am a university professor who uses this idea (Great Story/Evolutionary Epic/Universe Story)as the fundamental framework for a 2-semester Introduction to Natural Science course that integrates physics, chemistry, earth science, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Given what science has taught us in the last century or so (and especially in recent decades) about the origin and evolution of the universe, Dobzhansky's famous statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" must now be expanded to something like "nothing makes sense except in light of the Great Story". The idea that ALL of science fits together into a single seemless creation story is an extremely powerful one, with implications that we are just beginning to grasp. I don't really feel qualified to speak to how (or whether) to "Wikify" this article better, but please keep its essential ideas intact. Jim Lorman (lorman@edgewood.edu)

KEEP I feel it fulfills a necessary function, being the realization of a perceived need for a modern Creation Myth. It is neither Science nor Religion, per se, but points to an awareness that life includes elements of both. In our modern world, with 200 years of mechanistic reductonism in the Life Sciences and 100 years since we proved the basis for Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, we need a view to bridge the philosophical gaps in our worldview. Physics has shown that the mechanistic view is wrong, but people in the Life Sciences point to the success of reductionism, and take mechanism as a given. Mainstream Religion doesn't help us to deal with the issues like the origin of consciousness and the evolution of sentient life, and mainstream Science has few answers, which makes The Great Story a necessary pursuit for those who seek to have a satisfying account of our origins. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP I like Connie's re-write, but I had just completed subtantial edits to inform those new to the Great Story idea. It would be nice if someone could weave in some of my changes, as I don't want to start again from scratch. Either way, I still think the topic is essential. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________

SUGGESTED REWRITE:

"The Great Story" is an umbrella term for a movement that is manifesting today in scientifically literate cultures whereby new cosmological understandings made possible by modern science are translated into story forms that can provide the same kind of foundation for leading meaningful lives, in service to larger communities, that have traditionally been provided by a people's "creation story." Thomas Berry (born 1915, USA), a Catholic priest, academician, and self-proclaimed "geologian," began in the 1970s urging western culture to integrate the new cosmology offered by modern science into its religious expressions, as a form of update needed not only for religious consistency with the world as we now know it but also for the role he envisioned it would play in evoking "ecospirituality," "Earth Literacy," and a sense of sacred relationship to the natural world that would in turn foster a mutually enhancing relationship between the human milieu and the rest of, what he calls, "the Earth Community."

"The Great Story," "the Story of the Universe", and "the Epic of Evolution" are all synonyms for artful renditions of the new cosmology made available through modern science. The Great Story is science rendered as meaningful, motivating, and sometimes metaphorical narrative. A foundational book in this movement is the 1992 "The Universe Story," coauthored by mathematical cosmologist Brian Swimme and cultural historian Thomas Berry. In 1980 Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which aired on public television, expressed a celebratory understanding of the evolutionary story that was viewed by tens of millions of people. In a 1978 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book "On Human Nature," Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson signaled the importance of this endeavor of modern, factually based mythmaking by declaring, "The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have." Anthropologist and religious naturalist Loren Eiseley titled his first book of essays that celebrated evolution, "The Immense Journey" (1957). Around the same time, French Jesuit (and paleontologist) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, presented the evolutionary story with a mystical and christological emphasis, in his posthumously published book “The Phenomenon of Man.” Aldo Leopold, a leader in the early conservation movement, wrote of the grand evolutionary saga as "the odyssey of evolution," in his 1948 "Sand County Almanac.” And in the early through mid 20th century, evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote humanistic essays and books attesting to the power of regarding this "epic of evolution" as a form of "Religion Without Revelation."

"The Great Story" thus refers to any telling of a cosmic creation story grounded in the modern, mainstream sciences. Peoples throughout the world have, of course, developed cosmologies — that is, understandings of how land, water, sky, plants and animals, humans, the sun and moon and stars all came into being, what purpose each of these elements serves in the whole, and how the human is to live "in accord" (quoting mythologist Joseph Campbell) with all of reality, known and unknown. Traditional ways of transmitting these varied cosmological and ethical understandings have included creation stories, parables, epic poems, songs, dances and other manifestations of the human capacity to convey sequences of events and express relationships in meaningful ways in order to provide the fundamental context for living one's life. For peoples throughout the world who are still primarily embedded in oral traditions, these understandings and teachings are so deeply interwoven into their cultures and psyches that anthropologists refer to the amalgams as "lifeways." For cultures in which symbolic language has been translated into writing, and in which written documents are regarded as the primary (even divine and inerrant) sources for maintaining and passing on cosmological and ethical wisdom, these understandings and expressions are what is referred to by the term "religion."

The new cosmology that undergirds various tellings of "The Great Story" is mainstream science — that is, reality as understood by the collective scientific community that publishes in the leading scientific journals and which is taught in science courses at leading institutions of higher learning throughout the world. Because mainstream science is grounded in an evolutionary understanding of cosmos, Earth, life, and culture, "The Great Story" manifests as creation stories and parables that celebrate an evolutionary understanding of reality: galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, biological evolution, cultural evolution.

The galaxies, stars, planets, and known and possible life forms are all presented by mainstream science to have developed through time by natural processes that can be studied and tested using scientific means. For example, it is possible today to view how galaxies looked in the past simply by using our space telescopes to image galaxies billions of light-years away, which is also, necessarily, billions of light-YEARS distant in time. It is possible to observe the spectra of light radiated from stars and re-emitted by ionized atoms in their surroundings to identify matter existing vast distances outside our own star system. Scientists also employ chemical and thermodynamic calculations to understand how stars today, as well as stars of the past, are forming all the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements heavier than helium, through processes of "stellar nucleosynthesis." Although scientists cannot similarly witness past biological beings living their lives in real time, they do examine fossils, record the position of such fossils in radiometrically dated geological strata, and study genetic relatedness of living life forms in order to piece together well-supported understandings of how Earth life has evolved. Similarly, the various sciences of physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, linguistics, cultural history, evolutionary psychology, and others allow a vast community of trained experts around the globe, and of all ethnicities and religious faiths, to piece together stories of how the human psyche and human cultures have changed through time.

Scientific understanding of this evolving universe is now so vast, and the scientific disciplines and expertise so fragmented, however, that nonscientists may regard this edifice of knowledge as beyond understanding. Modern peoples may well embrace the applied fruits of the scientific enterprise (traveling in jets and ingesting modern medicines), but many still fail to grasp the cosmological significance of the scientific enterprise, consciously or unconsciously holding instead to pre-modern, non-evolutionary cosmologies. Or, they may be living their lives and teaching their young wisdom and values in fragments, outside the context of any integrated creation story -- that is, outside of a self-consistent and meaningful account of how things are, how they came to be, and what is important.

Thomas Berry has proposed that modern cosmology meaningfully presented should not be regarded as yet another competing religion. Rather, the new cosmology fosters a "metareligious" understanding that will ultimately be expressed in a wide variety of ways in and through each of the established religions and secular worldviews. There are many published (or internet accessible) writings of Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, religious naturalists, pagans, and others who express how this new cosmology can not only reconcile with their spiritual tradition but how it positively enhances it. Some have incorporated this new understanding into established holy days and rituals; some have created entirely new spiritual expressions -- e.g. "The Cosmic Walk," "The Cosmic Communion," and "Great Story Beads,” also known as "cosmic rosaries.” (All of these terms can easily be googled.) Multi-media (DVD) expressions of it are also available, notably titles that feature the work of physicist Brian Swimme, Dominican Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis, evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd, and science writer and Unitarian Universalist Connie Barlow. Short multi-media programs are also posted on the internet.

There are secular and religious educational curricula available (for adults and for children) in book or web-based forms. (The website www.TheGreatStory.org is a central node for accessing web forms of these materials.) Curricula accessible through the internet include "evolutionary parables," as well as course outlines and graphics for helping children locate "Birthday Stars" and for learning that "We Are Made of Stardust." "Our Continental Story" provides playful curricula and participatory processes for both adults and kids to learn the 65 million year (post-dinosaur) story of the comings and goings of mammals in North America. "Death through Deep-Time Eyes" examines how a dozen scientific disciplines present a new "creation story" that depicts physical death (of stars and continents as well as life forms) as not only natural but essential for evolutionary development.

The most popular children's books in The Great Story movement are those of Jennifer Morgan and Dana Llyn Andersen: "Born with a Bang" and "From Lava to Life." "The Kids Book of Awesome Stuff," by Charlene Brotman is a popular children's book in workbook form.

Global Education Associates Upper Midwest had published a reader, “Amazing Universe,” that offers text and guidelines for a 6-segment self-guided or group discussion course on The Great Story.

In summary, The Great Story embraces and includes all other stories. It is the science-based epic of evolution that can be told in ways that validate and uplift traditional religious stories by revealing the magnitude of their central truths – truths that have fostered cultural persistence over hundreds and thousands of years. The Great Story not only provides a faithful interpretation of the past; it allows for a deepening understanding of the past, as our awareness and knowledge grow. It is thus “A Story of the Changing Story.” Various tellings of The Great Story also may offer meaningful and empowering ways of understanding the challenges of the present and for entering the future energized by realistically hopeful and inspiring visions.

Rewritten by Connie Barlow - cbtanager@bigplanet.com ________________________________________________________

• Keep I think the rewrite addresses most of the above issues. As I understand it, "The Great Story" is a way of developing a worldview from the story of evolution. This worldview seems comprehensive and inclusive and flexible in a way that honors past and present scientific and religious thinking and looks forward to what may be next. Lisa Carrillo Lcarrillo4tll 21:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT. Sheesh, that anons have totally destroyed this VfD page. Anyhow, I rewrote the whole fricking thing. I removed all the POV, killed about 90% of the entry because it didn't explain what "The Great STory" was, and I somewhat wikified. The way it was before was pure propaganda. Anyway, vote away! Perhaps we can bring this back for a revote.Mmmbeer 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work. It's looking better already! If we do bring this to a revote, I suggest limiting the amount of voters, (the usual so-many-edits rule,) so that we can do this properly! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Connie Barlow's new version addresses the issues raised above. elisabet@sahtouris.com

• Keep Mmmbeer's version. The long versions are not encyclopedic -- verbosity is a vice, not a virtue, in an encyclopedia. There is a legitimate kernel of an article in explaining what the term means and putting it into proper context. DS1953 23:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, my vote is delete if the anons keep changing this to some sort of forum for proselytizing this belief system. Mmmbeer 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This topic is important, but I would eliminate Mmmbeers version as it's too uninformative to provide any meaningful insight into the subject, or even a worthwhile definition of what "The Great Story" is and what purpose it attempts to fulfill. Admittedly, some of what appeared in earlier entries was 'fluff,' but a reader should come away with a clear understanding of the basic ideas behind "The Great Story". I think Connie Barlow's re-write does that fairly well. Mmmbeer's severely edited form makes the entry almost meaningless. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 03:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP New version with edits as of this time serves the public well to inform about TGS, but is sufficiently brief, encyclopedic, and informative. It suffers from little or no 'fluff' and tells readers what they need to know, to learn more if desired. Jonathan Dickau - jond4u@optonline.net --67.87.247.33 15:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Tiananmen

This is a vanity/non-notable article about an idea for a radio station (that never actually existed, note the vessel was never actually purchased). The only Google hits for this station are Wikipedia and mirrors. This article was created by User:MPLX, author of a series of interconnected vanity articles, all about to be deleted:

• Four Freedoms Federation - (talk) - (VfD)
• Province of the Carolanas - (talk) - (VfD)
• John Lilburne Research Institute - (talk) - (VfD)
• Eric Gilder (professor) - (VfD)

Detailed info can be found on the various talk and VfD pages. This article should be deleted along with these others. JW1805 20:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete along with the related articles. --Etacar11 03:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn. DS1953 23:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was (SPEEDY) DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insensiives 9-11

Fiction. Denni☯ 20:53, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Delete Huh? --malathion ^talk 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WTF! I believe the nonsense tag would've been applicable here. - Thatdog 21:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - or speedy delete like all the other nonsense/hoaxes by that IP andy 21:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, they have to go through VfD. Wikipedia:Patent nonsense says that "while regrettable", hoaxes are not nonsense, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy is clear that hoaxes must be processed through VfD. While I wish stuff like this was speediable, fact is if you are going to follow the party line, it's not. Just doing my job. Denni☯ 22:08, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 22:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pile of crap 80.42.28.76 22:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete article without sufficient context to make sense. Probably about a nn character in fanfic, but who can tell? Robert A West 22:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete unintelligible gibberish - if this isn't patent nonsense, them I'm French --Doc (?) 00:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Utter nonsense. 23skidoo 01:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense. --Etacar11 03:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... can't even spell. Mmmbeer 01:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Gravity

Star Trek fanfic. I think. At any rate, it's not about the story. It is the story. Joyous (talk) 20:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Contains the whole story, not encyclopaedic. Delete. sars 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fanfic and the above reasons. And don't forget The Double Gravity Trilogy. --Etacar11 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reasons above --Font 03:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a possible candidate for transwiki to Wikibooks? Vashti 13:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't Wikibooks for textbooks/non-fiction? And isn't all fan fic by its very nature technically a copyright/permission violation? --Etacar11 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global One Lending

I quote from the article 'has very little notoriety within the world of finance' - nn? --Doc (?) 21:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - It may have very little notoriety within the world of finance at large, but it is extremely relevant on the West Coast of the US. I meant this line in the context of a nationwide or worldwide scale. It isn't a nationwide lender, such as Ameriquest or Ditech.com, but it is an important regional phenonmenon. A subject does not need to have world-wide, or even nationwide significance to be a Wikipedia article. I am a newer user to editing Wikipedia, and I do not appreciate having my articles flagged while I'm still editing them! I personally feel that your comment should have been relegated to the talk page and allowed for discussion first, not summarily VFD'ed. Doc, you have a very good point. This is a company with thousands of people, so I will be removing the line from the article, and I realize my choice of words were poor for the last few lines, and might be construed as not being NPOV. Consider this my "vote" to have the article stay in its current form. --Markarian

• Keep sufficient notability. --malathion ^talk 22:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but the article needs a lot of work and should be sourced. I can understand how that sentence got taken for an admission of non-notability, though. Robert A West 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cavanner

Almost sure this is a joke (even if the term is actually use, it's too local to be encyclopedic). Delete drini ☎ 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a completely serious matter. In 1986, the Etters' cavanners won the International Produce contest in Istambul. It is relevent to today's world in so many ways that it is not even funny that you would consider deleting this. That is all. Keep it!

Previous comment unsigned by 209.74.40.167, obviously, the creator of the joke. drini ☎ 21:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even a funny joke. Robert A West 23:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 14:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Caston

Mr. Caston hasn't done anything of note since Megatokyo, and the story of his departure from Megatokyo is already better-detailed in that comic's article. Anyone looking for him on Wikipedia, either under his real name or the pseudonym Largo, is probably better served by a redirect to Megatokyo. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd leave the article, Stalin hasn't done anything either since he died, but people don't look him up by wiki'ing for Russia.

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Megatokyo is more than notable enough, therefore, Rodney is notable. WP:NOT paper, so ANY kind of notability is more or less enough. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 09:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Megatokyo, per a MIB. Another one of those "limited growth" articles. Bleh. Nifboy 08:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_most_useless_UNIX_command

This is subjective and not NPOV, unencyclopedic.Mmmbeer 21:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. sars 21:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. Eclipsed 21:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite good enough for BJAODN. Robert A West 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — RJH 00:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Whilst Wikipedia might have articles on the useless use of cat and the useless use of grep, both of which are widely recognised concepts in the world of Unix shell scripting, this isn't those articles, no one single command can be said to be the most useless, and the subject of which of all Unix commands is the most useless has not received enough discussion by primary and secondary sources for a Wikipedia article on the subject to be more than original research. Delete. Uncle G 01:04:54, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
• Delete. "most useless" is highly subjective. ManoaChild 01:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's more, his example with if=/dev/null is wrong! Tonywalton 14:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leave me in your mother

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a place for slang. Delete. sars 21:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nandesuka 22:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary Ripper234 21:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Added "Move to Wiktionary" template. Leave

• Delete foreign slang dicdef. JamesBurns 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Splash 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthal theory of autism

Page appears to be original research or original thought, and may have poor verifyablity or possibly have bias. Bovineone 21:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Appears to fall under original research. Lots of cites but with considerable liberty taken in concluding, mostly toward the genetic superiority of Asperger's sufferers. An exact paste of [21]. --Lucent 21:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio and tagged. --malathion ^talk 22:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Can a user violate his own copyright? The original submitter and the content's domain match. It appears he was submitting his own research. --Lucent 22:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • We still need to be careful, since the poster may not have authority to grant the copyleft. I assume that an article that is blanked for copyvio becomes a speedy deleteRobert A West 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Nandesuka 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provolone County, Flinty Knoll

Fictional location. This user (63.19.132.96) has created a number of articles on fictional locations. Denni☯ 21:33, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Speedy deleted it as it was clearly a hoax, like all the other contributions of that IP. andy 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myst County, Wilson Store

Fictional location. This user (63.19.132.96) has created a number of articles on fictional locations. Denni☯ 21:28, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted it as obvious hoax/nonsense andy 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moore County, Flinty Knoll

Fictional location. This user (63.19.132.96) has created a number of articles on fictional locations. Denni☯ 21:35, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted it as obvious hoax/nonsense andy 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bigoak County, Wilson Store

Fictional location. This user (63.19.132.96) has created a number of articles on fictional locations. Denni☯ 21:37, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted it as obvious hoax/nonsense andy 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Essjay · Talk 07:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinoak County, Mt. Olive

Fictional location. This user (63.19.132.96) has created a number of articles on fictional locations. Denni☯ 21:40, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted it as obvious hoax/nonsense andy 21:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fast seduction

Advertising for non-notable web site. tregoweth 22:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Has an Alexa rank of 25852, and 7740 web pages link to this site. Fairly respectable. Find me a high school (which we keep by default) with those kinds of numbers. Denni☯ 22:15, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Delete, spam and not notable at that. Success at googlespam is not the same as notability. Nandesuka 22:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DestructiveChild

not noteable. Eclipsed 21:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Etacar11 03:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 23:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speed seduction

Nonsense about "a method of picking up strange women in bars." Definite BJAODN material. tregoweth 22:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --malathion ^talk 22:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ross Jeffries if it had anything of note, otherwise Delete. Eclipsed 22:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after a good stiff drink. Nandesuka 22:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Magnolia was fictional. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• I rewrote the whole article, no more "picking up strange women in bars". It still needs some work, but now the definition makes at least some sense. Please redo the voting. 82.210.173.231 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 82.210.173.231 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved the above two comments here to keep things in order. tregoweth 02:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Seduction and redirect. It seems to me that a few sentences in that article is really all that needs to be said. DS1953 23:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with DS1953 - add a section about SS to an article about Seduction and redirect 82.210.173.231 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 15'800 google hits for phrase "Speed Seduction" - does it make it notable enough? 82.210.173.231 11:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quoth The Raven

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 22:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree. drini ☎ 22:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to "The Raven". Dmn / Դմն 22:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or rewrite it to cover the Terry Pratchett character. Nandesuka 22:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• somewhat strong Redirect to The Raven. It's a famous quote, I understand Edgar Allen Poe even put it on his tombstone. CanadianCaesar 00:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops. I remember now, the full quote I heard he put on his tombstone was, "Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore.' Even then, I looked at the picture of his tombstone and didn't see it there, and on second thought I don't think anyone will search for this quote when they could just search for The Raven, so Delete CanadianCaesar 00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Font 03:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, so that it can be replaced with a redirect to Minor_Discworld_characters to cover the character Quoth.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 14:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online Soccer Project Alpha

• Delete A brand new fantasy sporting league. It's been around for less than 6 weeks. Not notable. Joyous (talk) 22:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and WP:NOT a webdirectory. A few thousand visitors in 6 weeks is so low it won't even be on Alexa. Can come back if they become notable later. -Splash 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very nn.  Grue  19:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have trouble believing the counter when there are only seven guestbook entries. Maybe I'm just too suspicious, but the fact that one of them says "I heard about this on Wikipedia and I may want to join" seems planted. Again, maybe that's just me. Either way they don't seem notable enough - maybe in a few months. Junkyard prince 16:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Mackensen (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes from new users

• Keep, I checked the external link, even though it's only about 5 weeks old the counter said I was the 7,394 vistor, must be famous then. UnitedRock55

(user's first edit) Mackensen (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if someting like this already averages about 1,000 vistors a week, I think it's very productive then, but if the counter was like screwed or something we should speedy delete this, so sorry but I think we should keep it. thaFOOL6-7-8-3 21:49, 31 July, 2005 (UTC)

(user has 3 edits at this time) Joyous (talk) 02:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, This website is a Freewebs site and I know about how you can have guestbooks and stuff so JunkyarkPrince, I know you can edit your guestbook, so maybe they limit the amount off entress to keep it organized. Also I have gone to this site before it was on Wikipedia and it about 8,000 hits before they set up a guestbook. But if there's proof that the counter has a false amount we should speedy delete this article, but until then we should keep it. wkpdarcks2001 13:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(user has 3 edits, two are to their user page) Junkyard prince 17:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Agreed Wondersofpi 18:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

user's third edit  Grue  07:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Agreed 135798642

user's first edit Junkyard prince 14:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this can add a section to my profile showing stupid stuff a OSPA fan could do! tylerthegreat1_12 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

user's second edit Junkyard prince 23:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denounce

This dicdef has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Unless someone wants to turn it into a lengthier article, I suggest it be deleted. Denni☯ 22:38, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a delete too. Denounce Newswire is a very funny satirical news site, and if it had an article, Denounce could redirect to it, but its Alexa ranking is too bad for it to be worth an article. We wouldn't really have any other uses for this page. --Idont Havaname 23:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), verb→noun redirect to denunciation. Uncle G 12:43:56, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem with a redirection is that denunciation is an article based on a less common meaning of denounce. It discusses the announcement of the end of a treaty, not the act of condemning openly as being evil or reprehensible. I think that in this case the best bet is just deletion. Denni☯ 20:02, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stångenäs Hundred

This article is stubby and nonencyclopedic and should be deleted. -Soltak 22:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this useful and encyclopaedical article. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has less than 50 edits. Account appears to have been opened for the purpose of trolling vfd. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place, real people, even if the name is no longer used. Lots of Swedish hundreds have short articles that are in the process of expansion. I've added the appropriate stub template so that at least editors know this is one of them. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, obviously. The hundreds were one of the main administrative and judicial divisions in Scandinavia for its entire known history, probably from prehistoric times until (in the case of Sweden) the mid-20th century. Uppland 07:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place in Sweden. I think the nomination is in bad faith. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason to think so? Uppland 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the nominator has made an attempt to nominate the category this article belongs to, Category:Hundreds of Bahusia for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hundreds of Bahusia), but categories don't go on VfD, they should be listed on WP:CFD. If the articles it contains would be deleted, deletion of the category may be a matter of discussion and the nominator can make a new attempt by going through proper channels. I assume the VfD of the category can be regarded as invalid; however, I am not removing the VfD tag, but will let an admin decide what to do. Uppland 07:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have the ambition of doing it all by myself, but if we were to add some contents to the pages about hundreds then it would prove they have notability. --Fred-Chess 19:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I started doing so on Ulleråker Hundred the last time, based on NF and another book available on Project Runeberg. (Wiglaf has added some Old Norse references, as well.) It will take time to do so for the whole country, but it can certainly be done. Maps for the hundreds would also be nice. Uppland 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as for reasons stated above. I'd like to have a comment from the nominator as to why this particular article is "nonencyclopedic". As to the "stubby" reason... Well... There are thousands of stubs out there. Go nominate them. -- Elisson • Talk 19:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another silly nomination that takes time and effort from Wikipedians.--Wiglaf 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Due to the obvious and overwhelming opposition to my motion, I officially withdraw this request for deletion. -Soltak 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Highest rainfall in the world

This article is referring to the 2005 Maharashtra floods, which already have their own article. However, seeing that there are other significant, severe floods that have been covered here, and I can't find a list of largest rainfalls in 24 hours here, I think a redirect to Flood might be appropriate, or just a delete. --Idont Havaname 22:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — at least half the article is PoV, and barely comprehensible. If it is already covered in the 2005 Maharashtra floods, then I don't see a need for this page. :) — RJH 00:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments only, no vote I think that a separate page is not required. The content of the page, after suitable modification, may be assimilated in the articles like 2005 Maharashtra floods (incidentally started by me and currently finds a mention on the Main page), and other related articles. --Bhadani 11:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted at the request of the creator and sole editor. JeremyA (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rathdowney Boxing Club

My google search found only 1000, on the top of the result seem to be their offical site but other result seem unrelated to it. I say delete--Kiba 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am the original author of this article. The initial text, which I wrote, consisted only of the first paragraph. I had nothing to do with the latter paragraph, which was added immediately after I created the article. What I wrote is entirely genuine. I would like to point out that I have no direct association with the subject matter of the article. This is not an advertisement; I have no vested interest here. It was my intention simply to create an entry relating to my part of the world (Wikipedia articles relating to the Irish midlands are sparse and tend to be somewhat lacking). I apologize for any transgressions of Wikipedia custom: I am new here. I wish to vote against deletion. Document Number Two 23:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Probable hoax, seeing as the text included funding by the 'richest man in the world, Fintin O'Brien'. Hedley 23:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I wish to clarify that I do not dispute that the second paragraph is a hoax. In fact, I am positive that it is a hoax. But I maintain that the first paragraph is not worthy of deletion. I do not see the argument for deleting the entire article, as I do not see why there should be any incredulity regarding the existence of a local boxing club in a town in Ireland! The absence of many references to it on the internet (if, indeed, there are any at all - I haven't checked) simply reflects the fact that Ireland is not yet quite so web-savvy that a small organization, such as the one in question, might have a website of its own. I point out again that I have no association with this Boxing Club. They have no knowledge of, or association with, this article. Document Number Two 23:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have now removed the second paragraph. The reason I did not do so earlier was that I misread the banner at the top of the page. I had believed it forbade any editing of the page whatsoever while it was being considered for deletion. I apologize again. Document Number Two 00:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevan

The site is a link farm. Take a bit of a wikibreak and check some of them out, though. Then delete this article. Denni☯ 23:08, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

• delete, speedy even, I think that there was a vote on this before (I think I posted it). Mmmbeer 01:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 15:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexy Miss Lizz

Previously tagged for speedy deletion for being "Non-notable". But the comments left on its talk page debate whether or not this erotic actress is important or significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete page any any references to it. Fails to establish notability or even notoriety. Nothing about her on imbd. She has her own web page and a couple of little-known video releases. — RJH 01:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Go on and list all fart pornography actors ordered by notability and we'll see how notable she is within the genre. --Easyas12c 12:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. `-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think she is notable within fart pornography genre. There are some sites specialised in fart pornography, but she definitely is one of the most notable fart pornography actors known by name. She is also the maintainer of one of the most notable fart fetish forums which is hosted under her site. --Easyas12c 00:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Haham hanuka 12:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears notable. JamesBurns 05:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False faggot

Neologism not in wide use. Joyous (talk) 23:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef/neologism. Don't bother to transwiki. Robert A West 00:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable term. CanadianCaesar 00:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Not needed or notable. -mysekurity 00:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. SD6-Agent 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Essjay · Talk 15:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avigsidan

Web page in other language than English, not notable by Swedish standards. Thuresson 23:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd say its quite well know in the Swedish speaking part of the world. And the article is factual. bbx 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy, a part of vandalism spree. mikka (t) 01:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grumphnoo

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang sars 23:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this is vanity, not even genuine slang. Robert A West 00:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to Wiki-Hell. Admitted neologism, with no traction. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 00:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Survivor: Africa. Essjay · Talk 00:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessie Camacho

Another Survivor contestant page. I'm in favor of de-linking all of them from the articles, or maybe (very weak) merge them all into their respective seasons. I know Linda personally, but I really don't think she deserves an article. (She's nice, but doesn't warrant her own article) mysekurity 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge — I like the idea of a seasonal page for all the also-rans who didn't make it to the final rounds, and have no other notable qualities. — RJH 01:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge I think we should merge all the contestants into season articles. There is no way these articles can really 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael_Boom

Makes not a lot of sense. Something to do with power rangers? Not exactly notable. Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 23:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no context. Robert A West 00:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — not listed on List of Power Rangers characters, so apparently not a significant character. It could be merged onto a page of minor PR characters, if necessary, I guess. — RJH 01:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 15:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Adomian

Non-notable. Only gets 100 hits on Google search. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:24, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)}

• Not sure. He has appeared in a couple of late night shows, but pretty borderline really. I'll pass — RJH 01:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PzzSchool

Duplicate of User:PzzSchool. Denni☯ 23:38, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

I still say this was a speedy. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Essjay · Talk 15:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Little Rock

This article accompanies about 12 others that are stubs regarding specific broadcasting towers. They should all either be deleted as nonencyclopedic or merged in List of Clear Channel Broadcasting Towers. -Soltak 23:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Real place. --malathion ^talk 00:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, it's a real place. So is my mother-in-law's house but I don't think I'll be writing an article about that any time soon. -Soltak 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be a group expanding stub articles on transpmission masts. This should have been appropriately stubbed (mast-stub, not US-struct-stub), though. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was resolved and cleaned up, as I recall, a while ago. They all should be in List of masts and if notable on their own have an article. Every tower does not need an article. Vegaswikian 05:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If I saw this I might want to look it up, and how on earth would I know that List of Clear Channel Broadcasting Towers was the place to find it? CalJW 14:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Answer. If these articles were moved to List of Clear Channel Broadcasting Towers typing in Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Little Rock would redirect to that page. -Soltak 17:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 15:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs

Non-encyclopedic VH1 countdown. Hedley 00:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP is not pointless data, or VH-1cruft.
  • Unsigned by DavidH. Hedley 00:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Oh I don't know, we keep all the FHM lists of sexiest women, etc. The VH1 page has a whole slew of such links just waiting to be filled in, and 50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs is available. We have page after page of individual star trek episodes, so how is this any worse? Maybe it will be of interest to a digital archeologist some day. Keep in a dusty corner of the attic. :) — RJH 01:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary POV. Besides, I quite like a few of the songs on this list. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
• Delete, useless list and POV to boot. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, subjective. There can never be consensus which songs belong here. Thuresson 08:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor point, but this is not a subjective list from the point of view of who gets to pick the songs. It's entirely generated by judges selected by VH1. The list is well-known and well-defined. Thanks. — RJH 15:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia:Is Not VH1. I just made that up. Mmmbeer 01:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It has merit as an article due to the countdown being a TV show. TV shows are considered notable.Gateman1997 17:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Gateman1997. --OntarioQuizzer 17:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Trogga 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subjective unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something like VH1's 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs of 2010 or whatever year they come from. If there is no attribution, then delete. - grubber 13:38, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
• Delete. This is both non-notable and a possible copyright violation. -Soltak 22:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not maintainable. On the other hand, if any of these songs or artists have any pages, it may be relevant to mention on those pages that they qualified on this list.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 11:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spirits of Runescape

Gaming clan of no significance. Hedley 00:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established CanadianCaesar 01:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 11:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathon_Prandi

Vanity page with inapropriate sexual references. 69.160.16.51 15:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep doesn't look like vanity.  Grue  19:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grue. And Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Ken 23:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Nominator has three edits, see contribs of the nominator. Wikipedia is not censored, but information about physical attributes is non-encyclopedic, hence I removed it. Punkmorten 16:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and make a redirect to There she is!! TonyJoe 11:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There She Is

There are currently two entries on the SamBakZa flash animation "There she is!! ",(also correctly titled with two exclamation marks) Comparing the two, and meaning no offense to it's author "There she is!!" is simply a better article than "There She Is".

When discussing the actual history and hits that the animation has received There she is!! offers actual numbers and awards while There She Is simply says it's popular. The plot synopsis is also more detailed and the themes of the film are better articulated in the former than in the latter. So in conclusion I think that There she is should be completely deleted, unless of course anyone thinks that there are some salvagable parts that could be taken from it and merged with There She Is!! 68.162.1.17 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge from There She Is!! (any important unique content), leaving There She Is!! as a redirect --Mysidia 06:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make a redirect to There she is!!. I have merged into There she is!! and There she is!! Step 2 - Cake Dance the parts of this article that were not already in there. The other articles should be considered to be more authoritative, since they predate this one, both have higher quality writing, and have more textual/graphical content. --Bovineone 00:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to There she is!!, as per Bovineone (hope it's not too late to vote). Cursive 04:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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