Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Burkutally

Vanity.--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This article should stay. It is an inevitably requisite article for the new and emerging busienss people of today and is becoming more and more relevant the more Mr Burkutally is appearing on UK television screens. This is a brilliant contribution to the wikipedia and should nto be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.14 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 July 2005(the creator of the article in question)
DeleteThe vast majority of the Google hits in a search for "Adam Burkutally" appear to be his posts to various message boards. The article itself is unredeemably vain. Come back when you're famous. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there no possibility that there is more than one person with the same name? I have highlighted the results that correspond with this name but apart from that it is not my problem that other Mauritian born individuals share the common family name of Burkutally. I am not him, so do not ask me to come back when I am famous as that will never happen, however I am a private banker that used to work wwith him following the advice of the banking consortium to help publicise the indivudal as we believe he is worthy or more recognisable attention. He is a true character and anything you wish to flag up as a concern, feel free to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.14 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 July 2005
- You used to work with him, and you have the exact same name as him, and you created the article on him? Inconceivable! DavidConrad 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to publicize individuals that you feel worthy of more attention. Wikipedia is not a publicity agency. Also, please sign your edits with ~~~~. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Again may I emphasise this isnt to generate publicity, from what I know Adam has no real gain from Internet publicity as the majority of busienss conducted is in the real world away from the Internet, and only after his new conglomerate incorporation will he be joining the Internet "world" in terms of selective acquisitions in line, such as investopedia. So as I said, this is not publicity, this is an article to educate the people who read the wiki of Adam and also how to learn from thigns he has done. I intend on adding alognside my team, more of a biography on this article and get some of the journalists whoo have written about him to join up with links to their journals however that all takes time but it is goign to happen as Adam recently joined Panorama in the UK for an interview and is subject ot be broadcast later on this year. Panorama, as wikipedia, seek to educate, not publicise so heed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.14 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2005
Delete. Strikes me as nonsense. Flowerparty ^talk 01:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment I edited the article down to statements that assert simple facts, removing point of view, promotional language, etc. A prior version of the article is here.
Delete. Vanity. No verifiable sources made for various grandiose claims. It does not give a source for the "rumors" that Burkutally knows luminaries such as Tony Blair, Sir Richard Branson, etc. The only two cited sources are a website which consists of a single web page, http://www.namoka.com, saying merely "Corporate site coming soon," and a listing of Burkutally's name as the 12047th person to sign an online petition opposing Verisign's Sitefinder. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Someone removed the vfd notice so I replaced it. I know notable people too - that doesn't mean that I am notable as well. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just tried Infoweb NewsBank, the newspaper archive, for the past five years. Nothing. Tearlach 03:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn and complete vanity. "claims important connections with famous people" is not an establishment of notability. -my sekurity 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How many 17/18 year old bankers are there? --Madchester 05:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Flowerparty. Punkmorten 06:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity --malathion ^talk 06:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete When an article includes future tense, i.e. "will become", it is painfully obvious that it is vanity. Oh,BTW, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Claims important connections with famous people" makes the subject sound like a name-dropper. And it's really easy to hit the tilde key four times - watch this: WCFrancis 07:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, and yes that future tense stuff. DarthVader 10:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Then delete it already. (Unsigned comment by 82.36.210.14)

Normal procedure is for it to be considered for five days. This allows time for people to find out about the VfD, research the topic, improve the article, and so forth. This is very beneficial to some articles and many end up being kept as a result. It's often embarrassing to the contributors of obvious vanity articles. The outcome of this VfD seems clear. If you are Adam Burkutally and you find this embarrassing, just try to stay away from the article and the VfD as much as you can. Shrug it off.

Articles of this kind are contributed all the time and get deleted all the time. Every time you create a new page it warns you "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see what Wikipedia is not)," but creating this kind of article is a very common newcomer's mistake. Regular Wikipedians see it all the time. We don't even mind it very much as long as the article creator doesn't make too much of a pest of himself.

If you're interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest you create an account. It makes it easier to communicate. You get a User Page on which it is considered all right to put information about yourself and you get to create any user name you like. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. Scary when the first google hit is this vfd page. --Etacar11 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete It seems clear that this is a vanity article. DavidConrad 01:24, 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Drage

Just an active university student with intrests (and probably aspirations) in politics Evil Eye 00:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's a little more borderline than I'd like, but it's still vanity. Flowerparty ^talk 01:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete Borderline, but still not notable enough Cyclone49 01:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Student politician. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It would be notable in a York wiki, but not notable enough for his own page here. When he becomes president or Prime Minister, then sure. -my sekurity 04:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn student politician vanity. --Etacar11 23:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Retain Just to clear this up: the entry was written me, and not Simon Drage himself, to complement the various other entries listing him. He is active at a national party level as well as at York, and so I think the entry is relevant (apologies for not following voting conventions, but I couldn't find any instructions). Theoaktree.

Comment, Simon might be active at a national level too, but so are many many hundreds of other people, most of which would not warrant an entry in Wikipedia either. And seeing the pages which link to Simon Drage and a search for 'Drage' on wikipedia, I can only find one other page which lsits him: that of York Union. I stick with my inital nomination for deletion. Evil Eye 13:40, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KCUF

Today's "band" that hasn't released any albums (just three on-line Flash songs). Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. According to their label's website, the notable musicians mentioned are "honorary" members, which sounds to me like simple name-dropping.[1] Band's website has no content[2]. Niteowlneils 01:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above, and rename the band to something better than "fuck" backwards. Flowerparty ^talk 01:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No mention on Allmusic.com and a quick Google didn't come up with anything indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Standard garage band. AlbertR 02:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to The Crying of Lot 49. android 79 02:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

redirect as per android79. I knew I recognized that from somewhere. Brighterorange 15:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Font 03:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do I get to use it? BANDITY! (band vanity, I like that word) -my sekurity 05:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. Redirect to whatever android79 is talking about is ok, but I don't know the reference. --Etacar11 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Band vanity. MicroFeet 01:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Hawk Elementary School

Non-notable public primary school. Delete or Merge into article about West Windsor, New Jersey. DES 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Verifiable school. Pburka 02:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- there are tens of thousands of local elementary schools in the world. Only some of them are notable. No indication that this is one of them. --Mysidia 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. According to the school's own website, it has been declared a "Blue Ribbon School" in the "No Child Left Behind" program. Crypticfirefly 02:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this school is completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but would you expect to find an article about this school in, say, the Brittanica? This just ain't encyclopedic. Nandesuka 04:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments only no vote: I think schools and other educational institutions with established notability should surely find a place in wikipedia. --Bhadani 04:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

- Everyone agerees with this, i think. But what constitutes "notability". Is there such a thing as a real school that is not notable? DES 04:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Yes, this school exists, it is a real school. It is even a fairly good school. It is also completely non-notable outside the local area. Not even everyone who lives in the school district knows of its existance. It happens that I live near this achool, and I assure you, the only notability it has is strictly local. It is also an Elementary school, with no students over 10 years of age. If we say that this school should pass VfD, we are in effect approving a policy that: Any and every school the actual existance of which can be verified is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That isn't what our policy says now, at elast not in theory. Is that now our policy in practice? I think it shouldn't be. DES 04:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per DES. To quote from the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article, "[t]he program has recognized more than 3,000 schools since its inception." I highly doubt that 3,000 schools deserve their own articles. I'm sure this is a great school, but I think it would be best suited as a (sub)section of the West Windsor Township, New Jersey article; perhaps as part of the education section. -my sekurity 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, informative article. How are we supposed to build an NPOV encyclopedia if we can only cover the top schools? Kappa 06:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep Real place. --malathion ^talk 06:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep So what if it's local. If it's important enough for someone to write the article it's notable enough for me. SchmuckyTheCat 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm dying to know how this one will turn out, the suspense is just killing me. —RaD Man (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete My own personal dividing line here is that secondary schools are inherently notable but primary schools are not. PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles about ships. Most ships are less notable than any school, but those articles never get nominated. The passion for nominating school articles is weird, but also futile. CalJW 14:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
keep please this is weird and keeping these is what jim wants us to do Yuckfoo 17:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the only claim to notability isn't very notable,as mysekurity points out. -Splash 17:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete primary schools aren't notable. Dunc|☺ 20:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep no shortage of paper. All schools are notable. Klonimus 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there should be a policy that schools are notable. Just like we'll add infinitely many towns, villages, etc. There might be information that someone would care to look up. Wikipedia is not paper. Mmmbeer 23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment if they are so notable, then editors would express more interest in them and be able to at least provide noteable alumni. I don't consider work to prevent a VfD removing the article as interest in the article. Vegaswikian 06:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  - It's not easy to find alumni of primary schools. Work to prevent Vfds removing articles is work to defend wikipedia users against editors who don't seem to have their interests at heart. Kappa 17:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    - You're right on one point - the lack of alumni lists show that no-one cares. The cabal for unconditional keeps on the other hand is subversion of the vfd process through highly organised voting and intimidation of people with sense. It is therefore against wiki principles. Dunc|☺ 17:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      - The principal of this wiki is that material should not be deleted without consensus. Although there is obviously no consensus to delete schools, unfortunately it is necessary to demonstrate that fact to the "people with sense" on a daily basis. Kappa 17:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Earwig. --Carnildo 07:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- I don't think elementary schools are necessarily notable, but this one seems to have some notable features Salsb 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ignore misrepresentation of Wikipedia policies. Un focused 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete elementary schools or I'll start putting up articles about local grocery stores. Although Wikipedia is not paper, there needs to be a line somewhere. ESkog 17:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable school. Klonimus 18:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep on keeping all schools. Grace Note 07:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Inherently notable for educating thousands. Un focused 16:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless trivia. Gamaliel 17:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep all enduring institutions. --Gene_poole 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Delete Every grade school has some sort of distinction, very few are actually notable. MicahMN | Talk 18:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete, being a school does not make this educational institution notable or worthy of an entry.Gateman1997 07:09, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current status of Humanity

Edited only thrice by one user, last edit over half a year ago - user said they're too busy to finish. Contains nothing apparently of use. Delete Nickptar 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete this is nonsense.
- Vote by 205.188.116.196 CanadianCaesar 02:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Information can be found elsewhere, this article doesn't do much. CanadianCaesar 02:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Somewhat absurd, and unlikely to ever be searched for. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Status of this article: Delete-worthy. DES 02:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unlikely ever to be expanded into anything useful. Robert A West 02:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even good enough to be a BJAODN, and nothing really worthwhile that is NPOV can come out of it, I don't think. Not necessary -my sekurity 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Even the title screams POV. Useless. --malathion ^talk 06:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Must disagree. The title screams "William Shatner". Fernando Rizo T/C 10:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
If it's legit and NPOV, merge to Kardashev scale, otherwise just delete. Nateji77 06:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- No way it's legit. The "Location" stuff is common knowledge and documented in articles on space exploration, and an estimated Kardashev number (a bunch, in fact) is already on Kardashev scale. The number on this page is not only unsourced, but to an absolutely silly number of significant figures. Nickptar 18:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete quick before the tempation to add "Mostly Harmless" to it overcomes me. =WCFrancis 07:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete--Jpbrenna 07:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Preaky 03:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above MicahMN | Talk 18:59, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khapi and also KHAPI

1 relevant Google hit, which is the link in the article. The author is only user of this API. Bobbis 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. AlbertR 02:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as "computer vanity?" Delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe "c-vanity"? It was worth a shot... -my sekurity 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Not notable or useful. -my sekurity 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, non-encyclopedic -- compucruft? -- DavidH

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tajeshwar

Appears to be a hoax, as no references can be found to the person or syndrome described. Google gives no hits for the alleged "psychotropic dysmorphia" aka "Tajeshwar's Syndrome". Tearlach 02:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless good references can be provided. The article is about a person who's only reason to be included is that he has a syndrome that seems to be made up - no references can be found on the web or in the scientific literature Andreww 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, this looks to me like it is intended to insult/degrade. Nandesuka 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. I'm guessing the "pitch alterations" are a way to make fun of this poor fourth grader? No references, so it seems to be a hoax, and should be deleted as such. -my sekurity 05:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless the creator / other editors are able to conclusively prove the point, and even if proved the issue of article's name shall remain a contentious matter - as it is the name of 100s of individuals in India. --Bhadani 06:56, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 10:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teh Scene

Non-notable parody. DS 02:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. nn internet parody du jour (that will, of course, have company in the coming hours). -my sekurity 05:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Tobycat 05:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 12:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep worth mention in passing, though article needs to be worked ErOhead 16:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fan parody. JamesBurns 05:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dum-arm.com

Delete Fancruft nn website, probably vanity. --Pyroclastic 03:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unhelpful, the curious would be better served by visiting dum-arm.com anyway. --Borksamoht 03:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable CanadianCaesar 03:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn and most likely vanity (who but the creators would be that intimately acquainted?). Nothing worth saving, I don't think. Perhaps a list of Harry Potter fansites might be in order? (please don't tell me that's been created....) -my sekurity 05:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete'. UH-OH! A confession! "Okay, okay, truth is, I wrote the article, but edit it any way you want, after you read it!" Sorry Zach, but please read WP:NOT and WP:YFA before creating an article. In the spirit of "don't bite the newcomers, I'd like to assist with any article you'd like to create. You might want to create a userpage, and then post that you're the webmaster of this site there. I'd be glad to assist you should you choose to stay, but please read the guidelines first. -my sekurity 05:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

One final thing (promise!), I think a significant ammount of information can and needs to be added to the Harry Potter wiki, where Zach's talents could be better appreciated. -my sekurity 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn fan website. --Etacar11 23:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, linkspam. Mmmbeer 01:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn fansite vanity spam TheMonkofDestiny 10:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Zach's talents are crap. His site isn't welcome here and no one even likes his site (Unsigned vote by 80.3.128.5 (talk · contribs))

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 votes ignored due to listed target failing to survive its own VfD). --Allen3 ^talk 11:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of arda

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia of Arda.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. DS 03:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete because criterion A3 at WP:CSD drini ☎ 03:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the most extensive LOTR website on the Internet. John Barleycorn 04:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Arda is extremely cool. But we should still delete the article; google will do a better job of directing websurfers than we will. Nandesuka 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete in complete agreement with Nandesuka and drini. Why don't people read WP:NOT? True, it is kind of boring, but it saves the potential hatred of Wikipedians with the VfD things. Most VfD pages are created by newcomers, and the rest by vandals and such. -my sekurity 05:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
delete. having it on Lord_of_the_Rings#External_links is good enough. Nateji77 06:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JohnBarelycorn. Kappa 08:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A link in Lord of the Rings can cover it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Encyclopedia of Arda which apparently nobody bothered to check whether we had. Morwen - Talk 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- That has been nominated for deletion, too, note. Uncle G 13:33:27, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Redirect as per the astute Morwen. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect for now (speedily?), delete if Encyclopedia of Arda is deleted. Flowerparty ^talk 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a webdirectory for non-notable sites. It's claim is unverifiable, so is not a grounds for keeping it. -Splash 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Although you are right that the claim is unverifiable, a quick perusal of the site shows that it is an extremely large database of just about every name, place, event and thing in Tolkien's writings, with an extremly high level of competence. This is not just a fly-by-night website, it's a huge database of its subject matter. John Barleycorn 20:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete a mention in the LOTR article is enough. --Etacar11 23:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge into main LOTR articleGateman1997 21:46, 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. No consensus. Editors can sort out whether to merge or whatever. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Maul Wars

Non notable warcraft 3 map, advertisement. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Redir Tower Defense, which is the basic type of map Wintermaul Wars started as. Marblespire 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect as per Marblespire. Too many of these nn vanity WC3 maps.... -my sekurity 05:42, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 17:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team Britney Spears

Delete - This has been recreated after being deleted less than a month ago, and is still complete nonsense/vandalism. Related nonsense was added to NASCAR driver pages(like Jeremy Mayfield and Kyle Petty) by 207.161.35.138, this page's author. DomRem | Yeah? 04:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not again. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

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

[edit] Team Britney Spears

Guess what? It's err... deletable Frenchman113 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

How so? Kappa 17:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - While I won't pretend to understand what it is, I do not see how it qualifies as deletable. I'm gonna attempt to research it, and see if I can't improve it. -- Cabhan 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - After doing some Google work, it is unnotable, and I can find no mention of this team on the drivers' websites or through a generic Google search. -- Cabhan 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Nonsense. --Tysto 19:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. NatusRoma 20:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if not speedy delete: All articles must be verifiable. If you simply read this, it's an obvious prank. List of the NASCAAR team songs? Huh? It's the "most defending" team? Geogre 05:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Chaos Chambers. I carefully checked all contributors' edit histories prior to reading any part of this VfD. Both keep voters failed to satisfy my suffrage standards, so this was unanimous. I am also speedying Category:Chaos Chambers as a bad-faith attempt to duplicate an article listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Chambers and Category:Chaos Chambers

~~Internet cult with 50 members, huh?~~ The "thousands of followers" claim is clearly false. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Apparently 50 was a typo, but for a cult with "thousands of followers," Google only turns up 54 hits for "chaos chambers", most of which seem unrelated. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I got stupider just by reading that entry. Nandesuka 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Now that's just rude. -- A Link to the Past 04:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with the flaming wrath of a thousand suns, twice over. humblefool ® 04:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. IRCer vanity. Not a valid speedy, though—it's not patent nonsense if you can read it, whether it's true or not. — Gwalla | Talk 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, seems nonsensical. Punkmorten 06:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn irccruft. Friday 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WWW site is not notable, WP article is not verifiable. Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article is largely nonsense. Erekrose 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

From these votes downward Category:Chaos Chambers was added to the VfD because the content are the same.

Delete. --R.Koot 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete I planned to nominate this for deletion myself several days ago. Oleg Alexandrov 23:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Question: Are you allowed to pile something onto a vote for deletion of a different page? If you can have category:consequentialist wikipedians, I see no reason not to have category:chaos wikipedians or something comparable. I apologize for making it an article originally but it does merit a category in philosophies, logical or not. Espantajo

Here's an even better example: Category:Cynical Wikipedians? come on... Espantajo

Officially not, but once Chaos Chambers gets deleted, Category:Chaos Chambers instantly becomes a candidate for speedy deletion, because it has exactly the same contents. --R.Koot 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the page but STRONG keep for the category. forgot to vote. Espantajo
- This user was once listed under this category. --R.Koot 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the category. As Espantajo pointed out above, this is a more legitimate category compared to Cynical Wikipedians. While declaring one as cynical can be contested, there is definite proof when one is a member of the Chaos Chambers. I do agree that the content of the category should be changed; it should reflect the CC category itself, not merely the CC. Erekrose 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- This user was once listed under this category. --R.Koot 23:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is not encyclopedic, either as an article or a category. JDoorjam 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I figured that if I changed the category page someone would complain about me doing that after the deletion notice was put up... so i made category:Chaos Wikipedians cuz thats fair enough. delete that page too if you wans but i'm owning up to it at least. Espantajo

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Splash 17:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Co-locate (verb)

This is clearly wiktionary material. Transwiki if needed and delete drini ☎ 04:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki as per nominator at best, otherwise, delete. -my sekurity 05:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki per nom, but there could be an article about server colocation... DavidH 05:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- In agreement with DavidH. Possibly create an article as suggested above. -mysekurity 06:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Do you mean an article about colocation centres ? Uncle G 11:37:37, 2005-07-31 (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 delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ARTS Interface Descriptions

This puzzle strikes me as particularly nonsensical, completely outof context, and since at least someone already raised the point of it being unencyclopedic, I thought I'd move it to VfD to get more exposure. Delete drini ☎ 04:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The sheer number of tags make this an obvious choice for deletion. Unencyclopedic, it at least needs to be re-written and clarified, but most likely should be deleted as unencyclopedic. -my sekurity 05:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Where do people come up with this junk? I wonder if this can be speedied? AlbertR 05:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete what little I can understand from this makes it sound like it is a description of how one company's finance software works. It includes things like particular directory names. It also links to FI, but I can't work out why. -Splash 17:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic, the article is all over the place. To the extent that there is some summery of a commonly used software app, then that should have its own page under its own name, and the descriptions of its inner workings, unless common to similar apps and discussed on simplistic level are best kept in the /usr/share/docs and not wikipedia --Jacob 08:42, 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digitally Wise

as in WP:NOT, it's a neologism. Doesn't provide much information beyond its title (a digitally wise is somebody wise about digital stuff) and it's a veiled advertismenet for the digitallywise website (which claims to have invented the term). Delete drini ☎ 04:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. In agreement with nominator. Even still, it should have been at wiktionary, and had them deal with it. -my sekurity 06:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As it stands it's neologism, as the nom points out it is really about the website digitallywise.com. That website has no traffic data on Alexa, and is also nn. -Splash 17:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wise. Mmmbeer 01:29, 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. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gran Turismo 4 Moblie

Not only is the title misspelled, but it's what appears to be a magazine or newspaper article about a non-notable mobile version of a video game. ral 315 05:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete in agreement with nominator. Possible copyvio, and too much crystal ball-stuff. -my sekurity 05:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons previously stated. K1Bond007 06:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this, and possibly leave a redirect to Gran Turismo 4 Mobile, which will be a notable game when eventually released. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete: can't see the point in a redirect on the off chance that someone types "moblie" instead of "mobile". Flowerparty ^talk 14:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already state--Daveswagon 17:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete! when the game is officially released on September the First i believe then we may re-attempt it. At the moment, there is the major error in spelling, and the article seems too much like a copy-and-paste job from a web review. Taylor 08:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus so it should probably be merged. --malathion ^talk 21:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chili's Babyback Ribs song

Come on...a page about an advertising jingle that isn't horribly notable? I mean, an article for Where's the Beef? is one thing, since it affected culture and was very popular, but this "song" doesn't deserve its own article by a long shot. ral 315 05:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. True, but you gotta love how the author wrote the vocalizations of the tune, "Chilllliissss, babybacckkk ribbbs". Once this commercial reaches (or comes close to) the level of "Got Milk?" and "Where's the Beef?" then it'll deserve a page. Until then, it gave me a good chuckle. -mysekurity 05:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- And, should this article be deleted, I'd get rid of the redirect too. -my sekurity 05:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree 100%. I love the jingle, but it's horribly non-notable. And to be honest, I doubt it will ever be notable- the commercials have been airing for years and aren't notable enough. ral 315 06:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, many people know it and would want to be able to look it up. Kappa 06:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Then they should look it up at Chili's, which I might add is a stub. K1Bond007 06:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this song is notable enough that it has been parodied in Austin Powers II, where Fat bastard sings this song while hunting for a baby to eat. If deleted, this should be merged into Chili's so no information is lost. Klonimus 22:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I don't really see how a specific jingle on it's own is deserving of it's own article. Add simple bullet to Jingle or merge info to Chili's simliar in style to Oscar Mayer and delete. K1Bond007 06:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- The information already exists, why should it have to be recreated? Kappa 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Chili's and cleanup. if there was some hard data, like the cpst of the ad campaign over a certain amount of time, or a name for that large black man who chimes in BARBEQUE SAUCE, there might be an argument for keeping it, but an anecdotal transcript of a commercial someone saw on tv doesnt really need a page of its own. Nateji77 06:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete flat-out, no redirect, no merge. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Many people" would want to look this up? Name one. Even the author of the article would never, in a hundred million years, want to look this up. If a million monkeys using a million Atari 400s were typing in wikipedia queries, the heat-death of the universe would arrive long before they tried to look this up. Nandesuka 12:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to be able to look this up. Kappa 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no reason to believe this is any more notable than any other jingle. No merge, no redirect. Joyous (talk) 15:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete individual jingle are both uninteresting and non-notable until they do something that somehow makes them one or the other. Just like teenage bands. -Splash 18:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated. Might be worth a mention if there's an article on the restaurant chain itself, but it isn't worth an article. Besides, the title is useless with or without an Atari 400. :) - Lucky 6.9 20:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable ad campaign and significant pop culture reference. 151.203.215.197 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Signing properly this time: Haikupoet 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Very famous. Everyking 00:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Anyone even have confirmation that this is the song's name? Mention it in the Chili's article if no one has yet (I bet they have). Nothing here; just another jingle. I suppose It's a Honey of an O, It's Honeynut Cherrios song will be next. -R. fiend 03:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn jingle. JamesBurns 05:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this song has enough history to have its own page. Maybe include it in the Chili's page. And also note that this is not their only catchy ad campaign. (Anyone remember the Awesome Blossom commercials?) And how do we know he's a large black man?--Ylwsub68 12:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, notable song that has become larger then it's orginal intent and is now cultural. Gateman1997 21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

redirect The stub was merged into Chili's#The Song and I expanded that a little bit to include credits for the song and the ad, its reputation as an earworm, etc. Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 17:30, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thearmpit.net

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. History of a non-notable Limp Bizkit fansite. — Gwalla | Talk 05:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete in agreement with Gwalla. At the very least should be wikified, but a nn fansite isn't worth spending time on. -my sekurity 06:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- web vanity. - Longhair | Talk 12:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fan website vanity. --Etacar11 23:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm the one who marked it for speedy; I'll be more circumspect in my use of speedy in the future. DavidConrad 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. . .--Meawoppl 00:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete This guy should hook up with Ashida Kim.Karmafist

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of 89 ZIP codes

List of all ZIP codes that start with "89". Fine list for an encyclopedia, but it's exactly the same list at List of ZIP Codes in Nevada, but with a lot better formatting, as well as wikilinks. I don't think redirect is even correct here, since most people wouldn't use this title looking for Nevada ZIP codes. ral 315 05:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. No use for a redirect, and I find it hard that someone would search specifically for that article. It's best as-is (with better layout). -my sekurity 06:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - It's hard to read, not anything significantly notable (at any level), and poorly formatted. UniReb 21:11, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Gravity Ships

Star Trek fanfic. See other VFD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Double Gravity K1Bond007 05:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Beam to Delete. Fan-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fan fic related. --Etacar11 23:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete "double gravity ships" gets 0 hits on Google. DavidConrad 04:39, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo: Create Your Own Level!

Quick Google searches seem to show that this is complete and utter nonsense (which seems apparent after reading the article anyway). ral 315 05:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete One of the things I love most about VfD is that it points me to articles with cool subjects that I otherwise wouldn't think to look up. This VfD has done that. However, delete this as non notable. Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to read Yoshi CanadianCaesar 06:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, completely fabricated. K1Bond007 06:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete and ban author - this is more nonsense from User:RyanCahn, who has been creating made up garbage articles for days. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
FFS, delete this nonsense. Hoax. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete If it really is out on August 19th, you would have thought Nintendo would have mentioned it by now! Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. Flowerparty ^talk 14:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- No evidence the game exists or was ever even planned.Isotope23 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A novel idea, but not reality. --Titoxd 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure Fakery --Quadraxis 16:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - DavidWBrooks 13:58, 8 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambroise Levesque

If this were not a hoax, an unknown painter with a single painting in a museum in Rejkavik would be non-notable anyway. However, 20th century and contemporary artists who have dealers and exhibitions (i.e. are professionals) are well-documented in various directories and dictionaries: "Ambroise Levesque Nice" gets 0 Google hits. This Anon. editor's other contributions have been in the field of commercial music. Wetman 06:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete LOL When the article says he's not mentioned on the Internet, it wasn't kidding. Check out [3] [4] [5]. Normally I'd have reservations about voting to delete an artist, but this is straightforward unverifiable. CanadianCaesar 06:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn and smells of hoaxing. Even without any qualification, his name only gets 14 Googles. -Splash 18:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This IP address has a (small) history of vandalism. Pburka 18:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn artist/unverified. --Etacar11 23:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn possible hoax. JamesBurns 05:29, 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 (1k, 1d, anon vote discounted) . Scimitar ^parley 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OghamWiki

Googling "OghamWiki" receives 15 hits, all of which are WP mirrors. It may be a real Wiki system, but it's not even close to notable. ral 315 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable. Nothing to do with Ogham, either. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But I'd be interested in seeing a Wikipedia Ogham portal. 68.167.63.194 09:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think notability is or should be a consideration with free software. This is a reasonably well written article about a real software project with real deliverables that you can download and run, and if I encountered it I'd expect to find an article about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't Freshmeat? No, but it's a place for neutral, verifiable articles about everything under the sun. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have performed a cleanup on this article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:55, 8 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarita vihar

This was recently nominated and just closed (by me). The previous nomination received little attention (two and a half votes) and I therefore closed it as "inconclusive" (and so default to keep). However, it remains a 3-sentence article that's probably advertising and in any case is a non-notable appartment complex. So, it should be deleted (this time). Dmcdevit·t 06:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this is th old nomination in case you want to see it. Dmcdevit·t 06:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete. ral 315 06:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It might be nice to go there, *lost in wishful thinking*. I think I'll check out New Delhi travel sites..... no use for this here, however. -my sekurity 06:33, 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 speedied, as no content beyond section headings. Dmcdevit·t 06:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of George W. Bush

This has no real content and if it were ever to be remade, a much better title would be needed anyway. Better to just delete for now; if the article is needed that badly, it can be recreated. ral 315 06:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A surprisingly spare timeline. Sure it could be useful, but probably isn't. Ral315 is on a roll here! -my sekurity 06:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Turkey

Also a duplicate posting at The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (now a redirect)

Appears to be the text, in English, of the constitution. Transwiki to Wikisource - if it is not a copyvio. -- RHaworth 06:48:51, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource. Keep the rewritten version. --KFP 08:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've tried to rewrite it. And I'm impressed with what I read. Thing reads like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights CanadianCaesar 08:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- In such cases, it is helpful to transwiki the primary source document as well as to rewrite the article. Uncle G 12:22:46, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Canadian Caesar for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Impressive work at salvaging what I would have thought inherently unsalvageable. Keep.DS 13:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kudos to CC. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article should be now removed from VfD to reduce the load. Pavel Vozenilek 16:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delist from VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very important article. - Darwinek 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable constitution. Suggest VfD be closed. Klonimus 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewritten version. Well done. DavidConrad 04:42, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backend Hosting

Seems to be a blatant advertisement for a hosting system. Google for "Backend Hosting" EZ Publishing (the latter terms being the company's name) yields only 127 hits. ral 315 07:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not sure this is anything unique... if anything the concept could have an article if it actually goes by this name. gren グレン 08:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - marketing spiel. - Longhair | Talk 12:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I work in related professional areas, and this isn't a commonly used technical term or concept as far as I know. It clearly appears to be EZ Publishing marketing material. - User:Georgewilliamherbert Talk 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Deletemarketing trash.Geni 09:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete ditto --Mm35173 18:31, 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 MERGE and REDIRECT. Done, but have tagged result for wfy and cleaning. -Splash 18:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basement culture

Mostly unfinished page on the culture of basements. Google search for "Basement culture" -"95 North" (removing the artist of an unrelated album with the same name) yields 119 hits. ral 315 07:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete--Exir Kamalabadi^Contribs 11:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

At best, if it were finished, it would be original research. Delete. Friday 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to delete this article. It's still my only lead on finding out why basements are common in North America. I think merging any useful information contained in the article would be a better solution. Keep or Merge instad. - Diceman 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Basement. android 79 20:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Android79 - Merge into Basement. --xanthan 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Basement. JamesBurns 05:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Basement. the wub "?/!" 21:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge (i.e. keep and redirect) as above. (If not already done.) (If it's WP:NOR, we can remove it from there...) JesseW 22:37, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Reardon UK

Google search for "Chris Reardon UK" yields 20 hits. Only notability is that he's some random British homosexual DJ that no one's ever heard about. ral 315 07:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity, no claim to notability -Harmil 07:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
However, there is a claim to "Brilliant personality". Delete as nn vanity. Punkmorten 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN, vanity. -- Mwanner 01:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klips ve Onlar

Turkish band that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Google search shows about 900 hits, only 156 of which are English. ral 315 07:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. Coming in 9th place in a semi-obscure Battle of the Bands doesn't strike me as real notability. If someone can pony up something better than that, I'll reconsider. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete The article says they have disbanded, so there doesn't seem to be any chance of them becoming more notable or releasing another album. If they someday qualify under WP:MUSIC point 5 (a members becomes a member of an extremely notable band), an article could be created on them then. DavidConrad 04:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn defunct band. JamesBurns 05:18, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ks-iwmi

I honestly have no idea what this article is about, but another user started to VFD it two weeks ago and didn't follow through on it. It definitely looks unencyclopedic, though. ral 315 07:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. That is so incoherent, that I'm ready to call nonsense. Or shenanigans. Both, mayhaps. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete some kind of vanity/ad. --Etacar11 23:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete if it is about anything, it is promoting it. DavidConrad 04:49, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 13:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kronk

Character from The Emperor's New Groove; however, it's a one-sentence stub that isn't encyclopedic. I could be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd put it up here to see others' views. ral 315 07:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless really fleshed out (which is probably impossible). Nothing to smerge even. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Minor character cruft. Klonimus 23:02, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuzco

Character from The Emperor's New Groove; however, it's a one-sentence stub that isn't encyclopedic. I could be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd put it up here to see others' views. ral 315 07:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless really fleshed out (which is probably impossible). Nothing to smerge even. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete cruft. Klonimus 23:03, 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 18:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-native pronunciations of English

Two weeks ago I added the {{Unsourced}} tag to this and left a message on the talk page saying "as far as I can tell, there are no cited sources here, but just vague impressions people have of various foreign accents, which amounts to very unscientific original research." Nothing has changed since then. Every single contribution to this page is original research. I doubt sources even could be added, because AFAIK linguistic research is not published on this sort of thing. Therefore, delete. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but try to find some references. I would be very surprised if linguistic research has not been published on this sort of thing. Dunc|☺ 16:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, there is research. We only need to add the references. E.g. Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English Vowels: A comparison with special reference to the learning problems met by native speakers of Finnish learning English. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, Tom. 94. --Vuo 16:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, with citations. Binadot 02:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Keep, agreeing with comments by Dunc, Vuo, and Binadot above. Very interesting subject and something I have thought about for a long time. It would be terrific if this could be annotated with sound files of actual speakers demonstrating some of these speech patterns. Probably not feasible though. DanMS 04:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Is there anything wrong in the article? If so, please feel free to correct it. It would be very surprising if the field of teaching English to native speakers of other languages has no research on pronunciation. Fg2 11:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Jewish supremacy

This was a recreation of an article that was already removed per VfD. If someone wants it restored, the correct route is Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

Anti-semitic garbage. Uppland 08:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, it's Semitic garbage. Jewish supremacism believes that Jews are superior, not inferior. (Unless you believe the page is to discredit the Jewish race) ral 315 08:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. Just because it's a vile, disgusting belief doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own article. On the opposite side, Anti-Semitism also gets its own page, even though it's just as disgusting. Besides, the article seems to be (somewhat) NPOV. ral315 08:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Do my edits achieve NPOV, in your view? CanadianCaesar 08:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't think just one user can change an article to be completely NPOV; multiple views influence the article and help keep its NPOV perspective. But you did a great job on getting rid of a lot of the POV stuff I was worried about. ral 315 09:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Ral315, but I must say it's bloody unfortunate both ideologies even exist. CanadianCaesar 08:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, even though I agree that it's garbage. Nandesuka 12:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete The Kahanists/Kach can be described as Jewish Supremacists (the first ones) and do deserve a wiki page imho, but the idea that Jewish Supremacy exists as an ideology forming an unbroken link since biblical times is a deeply troubling POV. This article seems to have been written by people trying to make the points that

1.) A belief in Jewish supremacy is widely held by Jews

2.) Persecution of Jews is essentially linked to, if not caused by, aforesaid belief.

Both of these are POV (not to mention offensive to Jews and completely untrue in my experience). Evidence for chip on shoulder are:

a)Treating the bible as just a story when talking about God choosing Abraham, but as a historical document when talking about massacres by ancient Israelite soldiers.

b)In the sentence "Most modern anti-semitism.." POV inexplicably ignoring anti-semitism arising both from widespread misinterpretations of the gospels (e. g. belief that modern Jews continue to bear responsibility for Jesus'death) and simple xenophobia from differences in culture and lifestyle.

c)Suggesting Hitler's Jewish conspiracy theory has something to do with even an alleged belief by Jews that they are superior.. but trying to control the world through banking, or enslavement of other races, is not evidence that one believes oneself to be superior.

d)"..was the consequence" deliberately ambiguous about whether the holocaust was the consequence of Hitler's/Ford's beliefs (which are not implied to be mistaken) or of actual widespread supremacist thinking among Jews (which is absurd POV).

e)"Not until after.." the Kahanists were not around at Israel's creation and there is no evidence of Jewish supremacist movements at this time.. looks to me like an mischievous attempt to link Jewish supremacism with Zionism.

f)"As Israel grew militarily strong .. " POV controversial and partial statement.

g)" .. many Jews believed that .." absurd POV, more like a few nutcases.

h) Jonathan Sacks (chief rabbi of UK I think) quote: deliberate misinterpretation. "jewish future" means future of Jews not a future world in which everyone is Jewish and this is completely obvious. (Warning-- newbie here! Would like to put paragraph breaks in that but not sure how..)Zargulon 12:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kind of

Like this

(see source) --Dv 14:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!Zargulon 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Clearly a legitimate topic. CalJW 14:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't see anything wrong with the article or the topic. --Dv 14:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- This article has been deleted before as a recreation of a vfd'd article; some other admin may wish to check to see if this should be speedied as well. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Agree with all Zargulon's points on the content, but a legitimate subject. William Avery 16:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Be all this as it may, this was a recreation of an article that was already removed per VfD, and I have speedied it on that basis. If someone wants it restored, the correct route is Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Am Flight 125

Non-notable flight where a cabin door opened in-flight. Probably scary as hell, but not encyclopedic, especially considering the 21 Google hits for "Pan Am Flight 125". ral 315 08:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - agreed. CDC (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 16:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Air disasters are notable, but this sounds more like a mishap. Has TLC even made a dramatization of it? Pburka 17:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete scary for those onboard, I'm sure, but I don't see how this is notable. --Etacar11 23:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Even with rewrite, I still don't think it merits its own article. --Etacar11 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for giving it a second look. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    - No prob. The others may all change their minds and say keep, of course... :) --Etacar11 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is probably a rare enough incident to be encyclopedic. There was an incident investigation, which I'll precis in the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE: I have completely rewritten this, but there's more to add (including proper references!) which I'll do if it's kept. This is not just an incident that the passengers found a little frightening, it is one that has been referred to in other, more serious incidents, as an example of failure of locking components and procedures on passenger jets. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. maltmomma 17:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be a fairly minor incident. --Carnildo 20:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Relatively minor in its immediate effects, but a sign of worse to come. The cause was mechanical failure probably due to the actions of a loading personnel. The incident is cited as a prior cargo door incident in the NTSB's investigation into United Airlines Flight 811. In that accident, nine passengers were ejected from the plane by an explosive decompression, and lost their lives, and a further thirty passengers were injured. Boeing was criticised by NTSB for not taking Flight 125 as a warning and withdrawing its 747s from service. In 1990, Boeing finally replaced the cargo door assembly in all in-service 747s.
- Remind me again, why are we considering deleting this article about a notable event in aviation history? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Because the incident isn't notable? If it's noteworthy in relation to Flight 811, then there should be a brief mention of it in that article. --Carnildo 22:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  - If it were not notable it wouldn't have been noted. It was. Therefore it is notable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    - What if you link the Pan Am article to the United Airlines Flight 811 to show the correlation? maltmomma 00:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    - I would, but at this stage there is a strong chance of deletion so I want to leave plenty of untapped material for my ground-up rewrite. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nipper (Person)

nn Counter-Strike map maker. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete even maybe speedy as vanity... (not completely sure how notable game map makers are). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete' We'll spend more energy deleting this than was expended creating it. --Wetman 09:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Smells like vanity, though 167 maps is quite an effort. - Longhair | Talk 12:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep --I'll clarify that I created this entry and am in no way affiliated with Nipper, and I consider his contributions to CS notable enough to merit an article on him. If someone wants to touch up this article to make it "Less Vanity-y", then they can go ahead, but I don't see what is wrong with it. As for the article's significance, there are (literally) hundreds of players playing Nipper's maps as I type this (I checked), and I consider that significant enough to merit an article. (I wrote this in two halfs at two different times, so the wording may be shady)-Atog
Weak Delete. I'm tempted to try and merge this with something else (maybe Counter-Strike or Mod_(computer_gaming)) but I can't figure out where it would be appropriate. --Alan Au 23:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even "(literally) hundreds of players playing" doesn't really make someone notable. Then again Wikipedia is not paper. But that seems like a stretch. There probalby could be a CS Maps article which you could mention this person. Mmmbeer 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:35, 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 RELIST. This is strictly a no-consensus, but with only two divergent votes, I'm going to relist in hopes of a better debate. Splash 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Gaelic proverbs

Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Scots Gaelic perhaps? DavidConrad 04:58, 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 Redirect --malathion ^talk 02:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sumerian pronunciation

This is not an article on the pronunciation of the Sumerian language (which is obviously a complicated problem, as the spoken Sumerian language has been dead for the last roughly 4,000 years and the writing is partly syllabic, partly ideographical, and more than one language variety appears to be attested in the written sources). This is instead a short list of (mostly) Sumerian proper nouns with their conventional pronunciation in English. The topic is obviously valid and encyclopedic, but this is not even an attempt to treat the topic indicated by the title. --Uppland 09:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Sumerian language. The English pronunciations of Sumerian names can be given (in IPA, not the ad-hoc system used here) on the individual pages of the names in question. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree, this serves no purpose that IPA on the relevant pages would not serve better. DavidConrad 05:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Sumerian language. Agreed with Angr. It's something that should stick to Sumerian language page, in a paragraph by itself. I think it would not grow enough to make a separate page for it. --MekaD 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete until someone wants to write an article actually on the topic given by the title. --zippedmartin 18:52, 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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason To Believe (fanzine)

Non-notable fanzine whose own counter on the front page of their website is only at 4600+ hits. Google search for "Reason to believe" fanzine -wikipedia yields 577 results, many unrelated to the actual fanzine. Not to mention that the page has not been edited in over 7 months (only edits are the page's creation, and the addition of a category tag a month later. ral 315 09:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability, not likely to be expanded. Friday 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Tiny number of visitors in a considerable period of time means it's not even worth looking up the Alexa traffic rank. -Splash 18:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fanzine. --Etacar11 23:56, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygeno2

I'm having trouble telling what this is, but it surely isn't notable. Might be a student project of some kind. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree, delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. Everyking 09:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be about high school kids who watch TV? Delete for lack of notability. Friday 16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think this is well-meaning, but woefully unencyclopedic. -Splash 18:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn student project. --Etacar11 00:03, 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 No consensus not enough votes. --malathion ^talk 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hkix

There are many, many emulated UO shards (which are fan-run servers for Ultima Online, a massively-multiplayer online RPG). This article fails to establish notability, and seems to just be adspam. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This HKIX article is a typo by it's name (which should refer to Hong Kong Internet eXchange, which is my fault on the typo), however, about the emulated UO shard problem. I am trying to write an article regarding the histroy of the non-profit MMORPG developement in Hong Kong, while linking it with the server names. (In which the shards are already not in service anymore regarding on adspam issues) I guess this kind of historical info about a virtual community growth worth its existence. --Zektonic 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. First you write an article about a UO server, then you say that it was a typo and change the article to something having nothing to do with UO servers, then you say you want to write about MMORPG servers? Weak Delete. If you refactor the article into something presentable, I'll change my vote. If you make up your mind on what you want to write about, you can always start over later. In the meantime, I have made a few edits to the article to wikify it.
I am really sorry about the fault, I'll try to explain it a little bit, I was trying to write another article at Emulated_Ultima_Online_Server_in_Hong_Kong, however I had made an error on typing one of the server name (which is ixuo rather than HKIX). thereafter I found out my error, and also found out that HKIX is another thing which I got mix up (since both two words I heard a lot), to mend my error I introduce the correct information on HKIX. (I am not trying to fool anyone on voting, sorry for confusion) Also, I wonder that should I use redirect to that article instead. Thanks anyway. --Zektonic 07:16, 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 --malathion ^talk 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation

There's no such rank in the Russian military, as explained on the talk page.--DmitryKo 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Longhair | Talk 12:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep: If theres no such rank, why there is there an established insignia for the position? The pic on the page is from U.S. Army files on comparative ranks. I beleive Russia does have a five star naval rank which can be bestowed upon someone in times of war much like the United States maintains the rank of Fleet Admiral although noone currently holds it. This should have been discussed, in my opinion, before one was so quick to add a VFD tag. -Husnock 16:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Established by whom, the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry? All the non-fictional ranks are listed in the Russian Federal Law "On military service and military ranks". This particular one never existed. -DmitryKo 22:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Followup Comment: I just did a major rewrite of the article that will hopefully clear up the confusion. I am not disputing any of the Russian sources. From what I gather, this is a hypothetical rank that could be bestowed if Russia ever had to appoint a 5 star naval position to be the equivalent to officers in other countries. Its not disputed there is currently no rank as this in the Russian military. Only that there could be. As there appears to be an established insignia, obtained from who knows where (it was on the Army's PDF file thats all I know), I dont think it can be called original research. Also, for the record, the knowledge of DmitryKo on this subject is very impressive. -Husnock 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, I see little sense in describing ranks that "could exist", as well as its hypothetical insignia that just mimics Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union layout. It's never even been proposed or appointed to anyone, unlike Admiral of the Navy (US).

"Its never even been proposed or appointed by anyone" is the statement I challenge. How can you say that for 100 percent certianty? Why would this rank be in a U.S. Army publication? What are the procedures in Russia's military for appointment to a five star naval rank, when and if this became neccesary. I would agree that factual accuracy can be disputed here, but there is too much for this to simple be deleted. -Husnock 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Its never even been proposed or appointed by anyone"... how can you say that ? — I tried to search the Internet, along with governmental sites and major Russian newspapers, for "Адмирал Флота Российской Федерации" to see if there was a promotion to this rank or maybe a public discussion for it, and found nothing. Not even a single bit.

2. Why would this rank be in a U.S. Army publication? — I believe they imoly made a wild guess that since current Russian military ranks are largely based on Soviet system, a rank similar to Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union should exist. They were wrong.

You seem very very quick to dismiss the U.S. Army source. Simply stating that they were wrong and calling that the end of it isnt good enough for me. The PDF file I continously refer to is from a major diplomatic publication. Saying that a major office of the U.S. Army, such as the Institute of Heraldry, made a "wild guess" is rather far fetched. That is why I am so much against this VFD. The sources that contradict the personal view of the nominator and simply being dismissed as "wrong". Compromise is what Wikipedia is all about. -Husnock 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can give me a Russian source for this rank, there's nothing to talk about - I'm just not in a mood to discuss factual errors made by various US institutions. Call it my personal point of view. --DmitryKo 09:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

3. What are the procedures ... for appointment to a five star naval rank — Since "N-star" grade designations are not used in Russian Armed forces at all (there is Supreme Officer class that contains 4 naval ranks - Counter Admiral, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Admiral of the Fleet), the procedures for "5-star" naval rank are just the same as for "6-star" and "7-star" ranks... that is, no rank, no procedure. --DmitryKo 21:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep: the rank does exist, but it is called "Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a source to confirm your statement, something official from the Ministry of Defense/the State Duma/the President of the Russian Federation. --DmitryKo 22:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

~~I cannot find it either. Plus, in the USSR, there were more Marshals than Fleet Admirals anyways. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)~~

At Russian_military_ranks#Russian_Federation, it said this rank does not exist, though the highest rank is called Admiral of the Fleet (адмира́л фло́та). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

True. There were two distinct ranks in the Soviet Navy, Admiral of the Fleet and Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union (refer to Uniform Insignia - USRR, Navy). Likewise, there was Marshal of the Soviet Union in the Soviet Army but also Marshal of a branch and Chief Marshal of a branch, both ranked equivalent to General of the Army (Uniform Insignia is being a litle incorrect here - see Comparative military ranks of World War II) . --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am now voting officially confused. I just found these shoulder boards online: http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/radsb23.jpg. If the rank does not exist, then why are shoulder boards being made in Russia? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

See the talk page. --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems remarkable that the U.S. military would claim such a Russian rank to exist when it doesn't, complete with insignia and everything. It almost makes it interesting enough to keep the article, but I would suggest merge and redirect to Russian military ranks, keeping the talkpage of the current article/future redirect for future reference in case the topic comes up again. Uppland 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the discussion should be merged to the Talk page of Russian military ranks, just to avoid future confusion. --DmitryKo 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I am going on a two week exercise on Friday so will simply say that I think this article warrants existence. There has been one champion for its deletion, citing Russian sources and Russian documents. If we want to put a "factual accuracy" tag on the article, thats fine, but there are sources both in hardcopy and on the internet for this ranks existence. I actually feel this was VFDed way too quickly, without any discussion, and I sense a strong feeling here of article ownership, from the VFD nominator, when it comes to Russian miltiary rank articles. Let's compromise, calm this down, and do some more research instead of calling for a VFD. See everyone in 2 weeks -Husnock 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The US Army source makes this notable enough to warrant an entry, even if they're wrong. The controversy can be explained in the article. Nandesuka 12:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the nominator of the VFD refuses to accept any information from a U.S. source, which may or may not be wrong. I still feel this rank originated through some regulation in the Russian military which calls for the appointment of a five star naval rank, to match appointments in similar militaries, when and if a war or emergency calles for it. As a compromise, I've been changing all entries to clearly reflect that the existence of this rank is mentioned only in United States sources and tends to contradict Russian regulations. However, the VFD nominator was not happy with that either, blatantly putting in an edit summary to "F- U.S. sources" 1. I probably wouldnt be happy if someone made an article on Supreme Grand General of the United States, since I would feel such a rank doesn't exist, but if they provided sources from other countries I would at least entertain that other nations believe there is such a rank. In any event, I leave tomorrow for my military duty. Who knows what I will find when I return! -Husnock 14:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  - I can say it again - ignore U.S. sources if they're telling unconfirmed nonsense. As for the entertainment value of this error, even if the decision will be to keep the article, exclusively for this single reason, I see no point in mentioning it in every article that discusses Russian naval ranks system. It best belongs to Category:Urban legends as a nice example of Conventional wisdom. --DmitryKo 22:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    - My keep vote stands, regardless of what the nominator will or won't "accept." It's not really his decision. Nandesuka 22:48, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Murdoch (born 1980)

Is this for real? Deb 10:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Google search on James Murdoch. First result is the site linked in article

(unsigned comment from User:220.238.186.8, who - what a surprise - also created the article)

The question is, since this is a copy/paste from [6], can I blank the whole thing including the VFD notice, and shunt it to copyvio? DS 13:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. (I didn't find it on google.) Deb 15:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

STRONGLY Delete - It seems that the article page has a copyright violation notice on it. Copyright is illegal in most parts of the world and it's takened most seriously amongst the general public. UniReb 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyright is not actually illegal, although perhaps it should be. It is copyright violations that are illegal.

Delete as vanity. Binadot 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete Per WP:MUSIC to be notable a performer should have an award (the artist in question has been nominated but has not won per 1 which gives his name as "Alex Murdock"), or two albums on a major label (the artist has one on Indica/Aquarius which I've never heard of, and one that 2 says is a major label release). The article does not make a clear claim to notability. Although the article makes some claims to notability, it also says that he "is now poised to take on the world." If and when he does, it will be time to put him in the encyclopedia. DavidConrad 05:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn performer. JamesBurns 05:37, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 11:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Arda

Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is the same rationale under which Encyclopedia of arda was nominated. A mention of this page on one or more of Lord of the Rings or Middle earth should more than suffice. I really enjoy the Encyclopedia of Arda. I think it's a great resource. But we are not Google, and we shouldn't try to be. Nandesuka 12:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This website does not seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:WEB. Very low page rank. No evident press coverage. No forum and therefore no forum members. Ergo, delete. -- Visviva 13:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing there that justifies a separate article. Flowerparty ^talk 14:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, albiet interesting, website. Possibly should be mentioned on an existing page about JJRT's works. DES 14:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a webdirectory, and this is nn anyway. -Splash 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, most notable Tolkienana website on the Internet. Google shows mentions of the encyclopedia from several different languages, with over 53,000 hits. Yahoo counts over 83,000 hits. I can't understand how anyone can call something this significant non-notable. unsigned vote by John Barleycorn. This is the user's 238th edit ;) Fernando Rizo T/C 22:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for not signing the above. I guess being perplexed does that to me. :) John Barleycorn 19:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I love LOTR, but this only needs a mention in the main LOTR article. --Etacar11 00:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. and this is being debated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia of arda as well. Nateji77 05:12, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaetano Liperoti

Nonsensical vanity article. Not notable enough, I think. KFP 12:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete ridiculous. -Splash 18:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough. Punkmorten 23:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:10, 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 and cleanup --malathion ^talk 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaw

Delete this page about a rare surname. AFAICT there is no one named Gaw with a Wikipedia article, so there's not even any point in making it a disambiguation page. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per Angr. Pavel Vozenilek 16:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Gaw Atmospheric Attack Carrier, I guess. Pburka 17:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up - The bottom half of the article seems to be factual and educational. I wonder if there is any more details or information the author can give about the bottom half of the article page. UniReb 20:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The "bottom half of the article" (2 sentences giving an etymology of a word) is pure dictionary content belonging in Wiktionary:Gaw. As per Pburka, Redirect. Uncle G 11:06:15, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up - Agree with UniReb - grubber 13:31, 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 Keep --malathion ^talk 21:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Walker

Comment - It's sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Besides, the murderer may not even be racist, as the article claims, since a suspect has only been arrested today! Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Here is August 1sts front page of The Independent, one of UK's biggest broadsheets, where Anthony Walker shares the limelight with Stephen Lawrence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/today/img/6.jpg?Monday,%2001-Aug-2005%2000:06:12%20BST and here is today's front page of The Daily Mirror, UK's second biggest paper http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/today/img/2.jpg?Monday,%2001-Aug-2005%2000:06:10%20BST 62.254.64.14 23:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Again, this is newsworthy, but definitely not encyclopedia material. Hate crimes are committed all the time. As sad as they are, and as noteworthy as they may be, they are not long-term articles. Sleepnomore 04:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This story was the LEAD STORY on BBC News, and front page of BBC News Online. TOmorrow it will be front page of national papers. It was indeed a racist murder as his girlfriend and cousin were with him taunted racially before the man came back with an axe. This is as big a story as Stephen Lawrence. 80.7.118.138 13:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (80.7.118.138's 23rd edit.)

The fact someone was mentioned once in a TV does establish notability. Pavel Vozenilek 16:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Pavel, I think you meant it does not establish notability? Anyway, it's too earliy to vote on this article, as we don't know what will develop. It's truly sad that this young man was brutally murdered before he had a chance to become notable in his own right, though, and I hope the perpetrators are caught and sentenced to a life in prison.DS 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Sad as it may be, Wikipedia is not a memorial. And even if it was a lead story, not all lead stories merits their own articles. I would suggest merging this article into one that deals with racism. Inter\^Echo 13:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - as above says if you look at the Stephen Lawrence Wiki entry it begins "Stephen Lawrence (September 14, 1974 - April 22, 1993) was a black British teenager living in London, UK, who was murdered in April 1993 at the age of 18. While waiting at a bus stop with his friend Duwayne Brooks, he was attacked and stabbed by a group of five white teenagers." which is very similar to this one - racist attack starting at bus stop. How can you have one in but not the other? Unlike the trigger-happy states this stuff rarely happens in UK so it is very notable to us, like Damilola Taylor and SL he will be a household name. Cashandhoes 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (Cashandhoes's 9th edit.)

Funny, here in the "trigger-happy states", we have very few murders where four white kids embed an axe into a black kid's skull after taunting him for dating a white girl. Or, when British Asians set a Scottish kid on fire by dousing him with petrol. Or, when five white kids stabs a black kid to death. Or, shoot innocent Brazilians. What the hell is wrong with the UK? --Muchosucko 06:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Because you lot have guns dished out like cakes whereas they're banned here and hard to get so we need to use other methods to murder! 62.254.64.14 11:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, judging by the insanity of British yobs (and police officers), banning guns sounds like a great idea.--Muchosucko 22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nominate it on VfD too. Pavel Vozenilek 16:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not memorial. There are good reasons for it, due to nature of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep this isn't a "memorial" as such, it's not mourning the death of someone, more info needs adding about the shockwaves this sent around the UK, media/pressure groups reaction in the aftermath of Stephen Lawrence, etc Placidity 16:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (Placidity's 7th edit.)
Delete - We don't keep a page for every victim of a hate crime. Perhaps this is more appropriate a subsection of a larger article. Mmmbeer 16:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Whilst this has got coverage in the UK (e.g. on the BBC), it is not nearly the groundshaking event that the anon's are claiming it is. I don't think it even really need merging anywhere. Being murdered is too common to make you notable, more's the pity. -Splash 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Yes being murdered is too common to make you notable, but a black person getting killed in a racist attack in UK certainly isn't. If you want to delete Anthony you need to delete Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence too. MorganStanMan 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (MorganStanMan's 9th edit.)
  - Those people have had significant effects by being murdered. This person hasn't yet. Besides, this VfD is not about those articles. -Splash 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge - into some article about racism and/or the UK.Karmafist 18:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Son of Paddy's Ego 18:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The article should be kept within Wikipedia. It states a horrific incident that occurred in history that's directly related to racism. -UniReb 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC) — (UniReb's 25th edit.)
Keep - I'm sure the family and friends of Mr Walker (RIP) will be delighted to see you gimps discussing reasons why he is not notable enough and qualifies deletion. 62.254.64.14 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - This is an invalid argument. Can you explain to my cousin why her still-born baby isn't mentioned in the encyclopedia? Can you explain why my parent's neighbor two doors down why her daughter who was shot in a drive by shooting wasn't mentioned in the encyclopedia? Both made the newspaper, but neither are encyclopedic.
  - Was your cousin's baby or parent's neighbour's daughter on the front page of The Daily Mirror or The Independent? Did they replace suicide bombers as the nation's main headline? No. Mr Walker (RIP) is highly notable and the way this page is going with reasons why he should be deleted / excluded days after he died is in extremely poor taste. 62.254.64.14 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Splendid appeal to pity, Mr. Anonymous. Terrible things happen all the time. You may be surprised to learn that we don't owe every murder victim a place on Wikipedia. I'm voting to keep, not because I think we callous "gimps" owe it to Walker's family, but because this seems to have become a notable incident in its own right. Let's not let emotion hijack the discussion. Binadot 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - for now. It's in the news so it's not necessarily going to be completely accurate, but it's notable because it's an apparently racially-motivated murder with an axe in a normally quiet area of Merseyside; not a run-of-the-mill gangland shooting. Maybe by the time this vfd comes to a close the story will have disappeared, but I think the nomination's a bit hasty. Flowerparty ^talk 19:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Every murder is a tragedy but every tragedy does not belong on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 19:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, especially in the U.K. Needs some expansion. Courtkittie 20:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Week keep - probably slightly prematurely created, but we can revisit this later in the year if necessary. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a news service. Write an article if and when this particular murder victim becomes notable enough for one. android 79 21:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Well-meaning Wikipedians from outside the UK may not have realised the magnitude of this story over here. Agentsoo 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm from the UK, and so far as I can tell it's played second or third fiddle to the terror arrests all day today. -Splash 22:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - note what the author said, "the magnitude of this story." Not the notability of the victim. A description of the victim certainly belong in an article about the story, not in and of itself. Mmmbeer 23:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Unfortunately, wikipedia cannot report on every unfortunate death in this world. Perhaps you can start your own memorial wiki or something to that effect. Sleepnomore 22:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge - into either a list of victims of Hate Crimes or a larger article to that like. Jaedza 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Notable crime victim and the best place to have an article about the story is under the name of the victim. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This will be a major story soon. Look at the front pages of the UK papers, lead story for BBC. BTW: It was immediately declared a race-based hate crime by the police -- No question about it. If Wiki is not a memorial, we should delete Stephen Lawrence, Kriss Donald, Matthew Shepard immediately. If this page gets voted down, and no one puts a VFD for that in the next 5 days, I will. P.S. I'm staying the fuck away from Huyton for a long, long time.--Muchosucko 05:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have started a story at Wikinews, and added a reference to that story, as well as updating with some additional facts from the Beeb. In my opinion, this is notable, although both the article and the story need more work. DavidConrad 06:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I had to look up Stephen Lawrence as it was referenced by many news articles about Anthony Walker. It is likely that this murder will achieve same notability. --Dejan Čabrilo 06:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article is not a memorial. Guaka 11:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable story and person. Punkmorten 15:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki - to Wikinews or Delete. Just because the BBC and the rest of the media give it such noticeable coverage, doesn't mean it is notable. The Stephen Lawrence case is notable for what followed, not the murder in itself. Does Wikipedia keep note of every racially motivated murder in the world? Whichever race is on the receiving end? Jmc29
Keep. Not run of the mill. Grace Note 07:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, major news story likely to remain notable as a heavily reported murder (compare Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor). Plus, the article has been considerably expanded from the one-line entry it was at the time the VfD was called. Vashti 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, one of the main reasons put forward for deletion is that Wikipedia cannot be a roll call of all victims of so-called 'hate' crime. Why not? If someone is murdered because he is black, Asian, white or gay, there is every reason why this crime of ignorance should be noted in Wikipedia. It was only through Wikipedia that I found out about the savage and cruel murder of the young, white Scottish lad Kriss Donald, who was killed by a cowardly pack of animals (although at least it looks like they may all have been caught). RIP Kriss. We need articles devoted to victims of bigoted, ignorant hate crime, so we can have some idea of the cancers lurking in the depths of our supposedly all-accepting society. Sab Singh.
Keep. This seems to be noteworthy, although the article needs a lot of expansion. Steevil 18:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Best to keep it for now, but we need to keep a careful eye on its tone. By the way, do not remove the VFD tag on the article until it has been officially closed by an admin. I've had to revert an anon IP's edit. The JPS 20:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Hi, this is Jaime Sullivan. I'm Anthony's best friend and I'd like to say, on behalf of his family and friends, we'd very much like to see this article remain. As people have said, it's just as important as any other major news story, and also a reminder that not only racism, but also community spirit and pride still exist today. It IS a notable story and believe me, he was and always will be a very, very notable person. Thanks very much.
Delete this is a sad story but Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I believe this article meets the criterion "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" from Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Punkmorten 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this has nothing to do with being a memorial and everything to do with the fact that Walker's murder is a notable and newsworthy event. Ben-w 06:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to WikiNews and Merge into an article about hate-crime victims. As much as this is a tragedy and something that should never be forgotten, the sad truth is that if you make an article for each hate crime murder there is out there we'll probably never see the end of it --T-Boy 08:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --malathion ^talk 21:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palm_m130

Opinion, not Fact

This article either needs to be "factualized" or deleted, as its the authors own personal opinion, not a factual info page.

Keep and clean-up, I see no reason to delete --Doc (?) 14:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Palm (PDA). This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Nandesuka 16:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Other models (e.g. Treo 650) have their own pages. Pburka 16:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Palm (PDA). I agree with Nandesuka that this article should be redirected because it's a particular model of a PDA. UniReb 20:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
"Palm m130 is the PalmOne model after the Palm m125." Redirect given how little information is actually contained in this article. A good table in Palm (PDA) would be of more use since it would allow a comparsion of the features of each model side by side. Vegaswikian 06:48, 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 Delete --malathion ^talk 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occasions in which computer software was used to infringe copyright

Aside from the bad article title, the question of what does and doesn't go on this list is entirely subjective. DS 13:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As presently stands the article displays apparent POV against BitTorrent, while the subject matter based upon the title could lead to a potentially endless and unmaintainable (not to mention subjective) list. 23skidoo 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete unnattainable. Dunc|☺ 14:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Rename, or at least, keep stuff like this off the BitTorrent page. This text was previously in BitTorrent, and I created this page as a way to separate the discussion of what people did with the tool, from the software itself. The BitTorrent article is getting very long, and listing every instance in which someone used it illegally is probably a distraction there. Ojw 14:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 16:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't even understand the point of keeping anything. Perhaps, what would be more encyclopedic would be something like Filesharing litigation. Mmmbeer 16:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Be bold in establishing a reasonable perspective on illegal use in the (excellent) BitTorrent article. That may mean deleting material, rather than starting a new article. William Avery 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unmaintainable, and just plain stupid. It's happened literally millions of times. ral 315 21:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Attempting to provide a list of occasions in which computer software was used to infringe copyright is rather like adding the White Pages to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Simetrical (talk) 07:04, 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 No consensus --malathion ^talk 21:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyd J. Austin

Doesn't seem notable beyond being a mayor general, ~~possible vanity~~. Laur 13:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Almost certainly a cut and paste job from an official site - but that doesn't make it a copyvio as it's a work of the U.S. government. He's a 2 star general, and I would say that only 4 and (maybe) 3 star generals deserve to be kept unless they have done something out of the normal routine of their career.CalJW 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is taken from [7] - isn't that a copyvio?--Doc (?) 15:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No...US Government sites are PD, unless explicitly copyrighted--Rogerd 15:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I learn each day, thanks --Doc (?) 15:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep There are a lot of less notable people in wikipedia. He is the CG of the Tenth Mountain Division. --Rogerd 04:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Unless there's a policy or guideline to the contrary, I'd be willing to include the Generals, Admirals and any higher ranks from any country's military. Pburka 16:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The Major General seems to have an "outstanding" profile, perhaps even more than average of a typical military officer. I'm sure he has made a significant contribution in the U.S.'s military history and perhaps future; due to the fact of the many impressive military activities, events, and commands he has participated in. Also, he seems to have a wonderful assortment of high achievement awards from the military. -UniReb 20:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. I've put some serious thought into this one. I don't think every Army divisional CG is worthy of an article; most of the pages would just be CVs with boring assignment histories, kind of like the one in question here. Take it from me folks, every military commanding officer from Lt. Colonel to 4-star General has a rap sheet like Lloyd J. Austin's. It doesn't make them notable. Here is the rap sheet for my old unit's current commanding officer, who I can whole-heartedly assure you is not notable in any way. Compare with Lloyd J. Austin and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Fernando Rizo... doesn't seem to have earned an article. Flowerparty ^talk 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep Generals are notable. This guy has several medals including a Silver Star. Klonimus 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Question How many 2, 3 and 4-star generals are there (in the USAF)? --Pyroclastic 00:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Generals are notable enough for mine and there is the potential for further promotion. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Major Generals are far more notable than many of the minor actors and actresses (particularly in adult entertainment) who are featured in Wikipedia. If command over thousands of men and tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment in the most powerful military in the world doesn't make an individual notable, then I don't know what does. In my opinion, all General officers (Brig. Generals, Rear Admirals, on up) are notable. True, there are hundreds of officers who fall into this category, but there are thousands of other individuals on Wikipedia who would never be found in Britannica (professional athletes, porn actors, etc, aside from major stars). --Honorius
Delete, voting on the guy, not the rank. I don't think people are notable based on rank, but based on achievement. Generals are more likely to be notable because they have the power to do very notable things, like Patton, Longstreet, Ike, and many others. They all did something, This guy rose in the ranks, put together a nice resume, but did nothing, as far as I can tell, to impact the world. -R. fiend 03:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'd say that any general, or equivalent, has far more notability, and place in an encyclopedia, than many MLB or NFL players, all of whom seem eligable for their own article. --Icelight 00:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. No one pays $35 for good seats to watch generals do court martials. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  - No, they pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to watch those generals on CNN. Sammy Sosa I can understand, but I doubt anyone other than their imediate family paid to specifically see some third string defensive tackle warm a bench. Just trying to keep things in perspective. --Icelight 16:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - That's almost exactly my point. Have you seen this general on CNN? No. This gentleman is not Norman Schwartzkopf, who is the equivalent of Sammy Sosa in your reckoning. This guy is the 3rd-stringer. Even with your logic, Icelight, he's non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    - My point is not that he's wildly notable. It's there are vigoursly defended policies on creating and keeping articles for those very 3rd string athletes I mentioned. I won't make a WP:POINT by nominating the lot (and there are hundreds of one-two sentence stubs on the most minor NASCAR drivers and semi-pro golfers, etc...) but that to be consistent, we should include this man as well, as he has clearly had a much larger influence in the world, simply by being in command of so many men, irregardless of any exceptional notability. --Icelight 18:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      - But what has he done with his command? As far as I can tell from the article he's never sent his men into battle, and anything short of that is going to be pretty minor. Peacetime soldiers have a hard time attaining notability, which is probably why many seem a bit over eager for war. -R. fiend 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  - A Division (military) has between 10,000 and 20,000 troops, I think a CEO of a corporation employing that many people would be considered notable enough to rate an article. There are a lot of articles in wikipedia about people who aren't on TV often. That isn't a good indicator of notablility, unless you do nothing but watch TV.--Rogerd 19:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Haven't seen any good reasons to delete in this discussion. Can we not just stick to nominating someone's aunt and leave verifiable figures of wider interest alone? Grace Note 07:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. After watching this discussion for some time, Icelight has persuaded me to join in with my vote. Hall Monitor 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:39, 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 KEEP. Splash 18:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptive enzyme

orphaned dictionary definition (Wiktionary entry created) Courtland 13:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

nominator comment: Just a reminder ... though you don't need to be reminded, I'm sure ... that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is (for reference, refer to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary). Courtland 16:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

information: ~~an edit has~~ two edits have been made to the article expanding slightly, but (in my opinion) the entry remains a dictionary defintion. Courtland 17:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep technical dicdef rather than something random like "quizzical", room for expansion. Dunc|☺ 14:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep there are a lot of these articles in biology that can easily be expanded or redirected. Chances are this shows there are very few scientist contributing to wiki at the moment but that will change and these articles will expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daycd (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2005 Oops I forgot to sign David D. 16:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to expand this article but a possible solution is to redirect to the lac operon article and incorperate a paragraph on the significance of adaptive enzymes on that page. Ideally it might touch on the developmental aspects of this too i.e. if cells all have the same gene how can they differentiate into different cell types. The lac operon was fundamental in helping scientists under stand gene regulation from a developmental perspective as well as from a more adaptive response. David D. 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No, if it must be redirected it has to go to gene expression because lac operon is far too specific. Dunc|☺ 21:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes that sounds much better. David D. 00:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep The article is a stub, but has potential for expansion beyond a dictionary definition, with examples and explanation of (or redirection to) the biochemical mechanisms involved. William Avery 17:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, provided it gets expanded. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete copyvio & redirect Dunc|☺ 11:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wil wheaton

There is already a page for Wil Wheaton and what's here appears to be nothing more than a copyvio cut-and-paste from a fan website. There might be some facts that can be incorporated into the other article but we don't need two articles on the same guy. Additional: changing my vote to redirect as per below; I wasn't sure whether an article with any sizable content could be straight redirected otherwise I would have done so instead of VFD'ing. 23skidoo 14:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Treat as copyvio. create redirect at Wil wheaton/Temp. Dunc|☺ 14:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Wil Wheaton. Mmmbeer 16:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above --malathion ^talk 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Wil Wheaton Jaedza 22:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 21:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wadchadoing

Non-notable neologism. Delete. DES 14:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I hesitate to even call it a neologism. Certainly it was not invented as the article claims. Friday 16:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wadchadoing certainly predates January 2005. Possibly vanity by Gel of Singapore. (no last name?) Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It can't possibly be spelt that way, either. -Splash 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gel's neologism probably is spelt this way, though. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 21:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Foo and Foo resorts and casinos and Foo Foundation and Foo Technologies and Engineering Corp

Seems like a hoax, I searched for any concrete mention if Bill Foo or Foo Say Mui, his companies or products and couldn't find anything. There does seem to be a Foo Say Mui, but his only mention is of a shareholder of INTEGRA2000 LTD, which a Bill Foo is the Chairman of the Audit Committee and is Independent Director. The article claims that Bill Foo started PT ANZ Pennin bank in Indonesia but the web site states that that bank was operating well before that and was working in Indonesia starting in 1973. There is also no results from a search for Foo technologies Engenieering Corp (FTEC) or Foo resorts and casinos. I can't find any mention of him in terms of being the second richest man in Indonesia at Forbes or anywhere else. FTEC building a submarine that "cultivates crops [to] provide air for the crew seems a little fishy. I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong, but I can't find anything that confirms this entry. There's a group of articles about his companies that I'll have to add also.

I can find no mention for Foo resorts and casinos and not a single return for the Majah Pahid Hotel mentioned in the Foo resorts and casinos article. Rx StrangeLove 15:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding the associated Bill Foo pages one at a time. I can find no mention of Foo Technologies and Engineering Corp or it's "Foo class" submarine. Nothing even close. Rx StrangeLove 15:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. I feel a Fool, I started to clean-up these and fix the titles - but I should have checked the veracity first. --Doc (?) 15:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for finishing these off! What a waste of time! Rx StrangeLove 15:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I noticed these as they went by earlier. Looked like a hoax, but I was too lazy to totally verify. Mmmbeer 16:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The only thing that I hate worse than sockpuppets are plausible-sounding hoax articles designed to do nothing more than cause a problem like this. Delete and consider banning user. I feel very strongly about this sort of behavior. After all, silence is foo! :^) - Lucky 6.9 05:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete unverifiable, almost certain hoax. Agree with Lucky 6.9. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete unverifiable, hoax. --Apyule 07:33, 8 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. FCYTravis 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates

Company vanity: not notable, not encyclopedic. Delete. Cleduc 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article doesn't even say what this non-notable company does! Pburka 16:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article doesn't deserve to be. It made me laugh, though. Punkmorten 23:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete so notable they have a geocities website... --Etacar11 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We should definitly keep it because it's not hurting anything and I'm sure Mr. Pharr worked hard on the company site. They have a logo and everything, so they are legit. (I am on the payroll so I have to say this!) (Unsigned vote by 172.148.78.242 (talk · contribs))
- Notwithstanding the hard work, "logo and everything", an anonymous vote under duress is hardly convincing. Cleduc 13:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitly should keep this awesome page and whoever deletes it is a very bad person! (Unsigned vote by 216.229.198.235 (talk · contribs))

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 02:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Towel-waiving

I'm not going to move it to "Towel waving" just to vfd that page in turn, so let's just do this here. Non-notable habit done by some sports audiences. DS 16:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Can it be merged somewhere? If not, delete. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Skill? How is this a skill? Do not merge, since we'd be merging made up sillyness. -Splash 18:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there a page of fan related things people do, like blow horns and beat drums. If so, merge it to there. If not, a delete is just fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I am not persuaded of the case for a merge/redirect and there are no votes explicitly requesting that. -Splash 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hostal

(1) title misspelled (2) page "Hostel" already exists and has a great deal more content (3) article's creator included a link to a commercial site, which I presume was the actual intent behind the creation of the page Kymacpherson 16:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Title is correctly spelled. It's Spanish and appears to be different than a hostel, probably closer to a bed and breakfast, inn or guest house. Pburka 16:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify point (1), hostal is not an english word, according to Webster's Collegiate or Webster's International dicitonary. It is a spanish word—the direct translation of the english word hostel. Kymacpherson 21:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - No it's not - see for example this page on WikiTravel which states, 'It is important not to confuse a Hostal with a Hostel. A hostel offers backpacker-type accommodation with shared rooms. However a hostal is very similar to guest house and is generally cheaper than a hotel.' - ulayiti (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Pburka is right. - ulayiti (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Should this then be on the Spanish wiki, or merged or crosslinked with Hostel or Hotel? Although there's some distinction, it sounds like a kind of a hostel to me. undecided DavidConrad 07:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's nothing like a hostel. If it's to merged with anything (which I would resent) it would have to be the article on hotel. Trust me on this one, I've stayed in many hostals while I've been in Spain, and they're nothing like hostels. They're more like the bed and breakfast things in the UK. - ulayiti (talk) 12:58, 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 --malathion ^talk 01:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shapps Technologies

Blatant ad. Not notable. Mmmbeer 16:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Some parts of the website are in the first person, so I don't lend much credence to the article here. -Splash 18:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn ad/spam. --Etacar11 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete "Basically, Shapps is an alias of a freelance webdesigner Mohsin Ali, who is also chief executive of Shapps Technologies." Sheer vanity. DavidConrad 07:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, vanity, ad spam. DS1953 14:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "branch of science"

redundant listing Vsmith 17:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm not sure what exactly this article is trying to do, but it is already done much better at Science. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant with Science#Fields_of_science. Nabla 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. -Splash 18:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete yes, redundant. --Etacar11 00:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete mostly useless Mrmcgibby 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 00:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Noetic null; also possibly not nPOV. Eldereft 09:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant. --Apyule 07:29, 8 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 --malathion ^talk 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law of information

It basically states (in poorly written plain words) that H(X)-H(X|Y)=H(Y)-H(Y|X) in information channel (see information theory), so it's redundant. The rest is either corollary of this or unintelligible. Samohyl Jan 17:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --R.Koot 17:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any information in this article. Markus Schmaus 17:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dear oh lord. -Splash 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article should have been named "Law of nonsense" rather than "Law of information". Oleg Alexandrov 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete linas 23:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above. Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:27, 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 Already deleted --malathion ^talk 02:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild

I am moving this here from CfD, since it is not a category. Debate so far follows. -Splash 17:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose deletion of this page. There have been no conspiracy theories concerning the London bombings and Wiki should not be creating them (although Wiki has certainly promoted other conspiracy theories). Also, doing this one week after the murders is highly disrespectful. --Noitall 04:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep

First, there is a great conspiracy theory about it, cheek prisonplanet.com or [8] [9]
Second, IF there is a conspiracy, is it not more disrespectful to the persones murdered to ignore it?
Third, Its a wiki project aimed at improving the quality of the subject, not a article in it self. Its newly started, but it will grow, as people start to make research on the subject.

I'm truly sorry if it offended anybody, i truly did not intend that.--Striver 04:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly accept that the matter was not intended to be disrespectful, but I think it gives the overall impression to strangers of at least being insensitive. --Noitall 04:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dear brother in humanity. What should the project be named, what is your sugestion? --Striver 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I admit bias against conspiracies theories in general, but why do you need a separate page for each one, why not just the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild? --Noitall 05:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, i gave the london bombing its own project after having been extreamly frustrated att the pure sencorship on the subject. Basic mainstream facts was deleted from the page, on the basis of it being "irrelevant", even though it hade been covered by several non-wiki articles and the removal of the mainstream facts was fiercly opposed by several editors, but the majority deleted it as "irrelevant". I strongly feelt that it needed a project where people dedicated to the conspiracy could find strenght and arguments in number, to evade being dissmised as "irrelevant". The The World Conspiracy Guild tries to paint with a broader brush trying to show the historical conspiracies to give credebility to the ongoing conspiracys. The project would be flooded if every conspiracy would have been dealt with there. --Striver 05:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Move to Vfd Isn't this a Vfd related task? It is not a category, per say. ∞Who ?¿? 10:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Coment I dont get it. What is the project doing in a Vfd of articles? This is by no means a article, this is a project aimed to gather material and people intrested in the subject, in order to make a article, OR add material to any existing article related to the topic. Could you explain to me why there is a Vfd for a project? --Striver 17:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a page on the Wikipedia: namespace so it can be proposed for deletion. David | Talk 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Bro, do you know the diffrense between a article and a project? is this (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG) also a article? Why dont you go and Vfd it?

--Striver 18:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

- Well dear, I haven't actually voted on this one. The link you give is to a talk page, and talk pages normally go with their associated Project page. The project page for Islam:SIIEG is subject to VfD if someone wants to put it up. David | Talk 19:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Everything that is not a template, a category, a redirect or an image for deletion comes to VfD (whether they are project pages or article pages). -Splash 01:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the others related. -Splash 01:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete irrelevant. Grue 19:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Conspiracruft. ral 315 21:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, without question or hesitation. K1Bond007 07:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - highly dubious, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 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 --malathion ^talk 22:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (interconnected) boundaries of Antarctica

I don't why this is titled this way. Most of the information is covered by Antarctica. Mmmbeer 17:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: info already covered by Antarctica. --Ragib 17:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Misguided idea. -- RHaworth 18:06:35, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
Delete. This content is duplicated by Antarctica. Tobycat 18:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please delete this failed project. UniReb 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nice idea, but has no future. --Apyule 07:44, 8 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 --malathion ^talk 02:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (interconnected) boundaries of North America

There may be some virtue in creating what-borders-what articles for each country but this article is not the way to do it. Note that it contains red links to another fifty proposed "(interconnected) boundaries of …" articles and tries to create a new Catergory [sic]. Is not this data better handled by maps? Nip this project speedily in the bud. -- RHaworth 18:03:22, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Delete per my (interconnected) boundaries of Antarctica entry as well. Someone should talk to the author. Mmmbeer 18:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please delete this failed project. UniReb 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
One thing that is not handled well at all by maps is support for the blind and visually impaired. Textual information on what borders what could be useful, but should be in the existing articles on these places. Delete DavidConrad 07:00, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of boundaries

This was going to be the index to the "(interconnected) boundaries of …" articles (see above). If they fail VfD, then this fails too. -- RHaworth 18:28:06, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Delete. Please delete this failed project. UniReb 20:45, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Livingston

He's worked in several large companies, but I'm not sure that's sufficient for his own article. Joyous (talk) 18:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete 4,790 Google hits [10], and he looks minorly notable. But unless key details have been left out, he doesn't look notable enough for an article. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I can't find a policy on this, but an argument could be made that directors of publicly traded companies are notable. Pburka 21:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Notability hasn't been established. Delete and redirect to Ian Livingstone. Martg76 22:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ian Livingston and Ian Livingstone are different people do not redirect. Delete, unless notability can be established and expanded upon. Daedalus-Prime 18:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  - The redirect was suggested as a possible typo. Martg76 12:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    - In that case, wouldn't disambig be a better solution? Daedalus-Prime 20:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Director of major public company. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --malathion ^talk 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Betteridge

This article is about a community theater actor in the UK. No notability within the profession and therefore should be deleted. Google turns up 71 hits on the name and it's hard to tell if any of them pertain to this individual. Tobycat 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I make 70 Google hits [11]. Possible vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn actor vanity. --Etacar11 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Little Theater vanity. --Calton | Talk 03:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Essjay · Talk 06:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban aid

Delete: this is just original research (WP:NOR), and is also just a rant. Most of the article is a dump of a press stament by Powell. -Splash 19:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki the speech to Wikisource. Delete the rest or merge with Taliban. Pburka 21:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete speech and possible copyvio. 15:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Previous edit was by Axon (talk · contribs).
- I don't think that it's a copyvio. Anything written by a US government employee in the course of their duties is public domain. Pburka 03:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki the speech to Wikisource. The title should be along the lines of "Colin Powell's statement on US links with (or perhaps "aid for") the Taliban", not "Taliban Aid". Mr. Jones 08:14, 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 anon/unsigned votes aren't counted --malathion ^talk 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greling Jackson

Cannot establish notoriety. Only Google results are thousands of Oasis Magazine posts. ArmadniGeneral 18:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Well, the article doesn't establish notability. Possibly vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)<
delete. --Sleepyhead81 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Save He has been mentioned several times on the Mt. San Antonio College webpage and the webpages of other colleges, has a high Amazon.com Reviewer rank, and is part of several Gay & Lesbian Times articles. (Unsigned vote by 24.130.41.31 --ArmadniGeneral 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC))
Delete - This article does not seem to have any educational significance what-so-ever. It appears to be a short biography about a living individual that could have been mentioned in a few local media outlets. UniReb 20:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This guy has over 7 pages of web results on Google. I think that's popular enough.
Delete - I know this guy, and I like him, but I agree that his work as it is right now in not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. solvent 19:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Popularity does not equal notability; and arguments carry more weight when they're signed.--Scimitar ^parley 23:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Grue 16:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real New York City

Delete, it's an fantasy football team created by a website. The website article is also up for deletion here. -Splash 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete No claim to notability --malathion ^talk 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'm sure there isn't any significance to this article. UniReb 20:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep-On the guestbook on the website there was about 20 people interested in playing on the fantasy team Real New York, this is notable and defenity not vanity. Wikipediarocks2001 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep-Agreed, Thirty-Twenty 16:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to welcome the above users to Wikipedia, as they have about a dozen edits between them. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete note that "keep" voters are socks. Grue 20:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn fantasy team. JamesBurns 05:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OSPA was deleted

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Essjay · Talk 06:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serrated

Delete dicdef without room for useful expansion. I imagine this is about to be Transwiki'd so please check Wiktionary before suggesting that. -Splash 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be in wiktionary, so transwiki I guess. Flowerparty ^talk 19:28, 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. Scimitar ^parley 23:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobbi Brown

Not notable. --malathion ^talk 19:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep 681,000 Google hits [12] suggests notability. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Wait a minute...You linked to the wrong article! Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - Weak Delete Bobbi may be notable [13], though an expansion needs to be made for a keep vote. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Oh, come on! He just got his own reality tv show. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- VfD was misdirected - has been fixed to point to the non-notable model, Bobbi Brown. Delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Notable. --Sleepyhead81 19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Sleepyhead81 19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - comment. Changed from speedy keep to delete. Link was previously incorrect. --Sleepyhead81 19:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I was just starting a rant on the outrageousness of proposing to delete Bobby Brown. However, although the Bobbi Brown article might even be a speedy candidate in its current condition, she actually seems to be above the notability bar, but due to her achievements an entrepreneur rather than as a model. I get 771,000 Google hits, most of them clearly relevant. She runs a cosmetics company [14]. She's been on Oprah, presented as "make-up artist of the stars and one of the world's premiere skin care experts" [15]. She's also listed as the author of several published books on Amazon. No vote as of yet. / Alarm 19:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My Google test got 807,000 Google hits, (see the link I posted above,) though with all the sponsered links, I think you may be right. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - notable, well-known for her appearance on Warrant' music video and she's still building her career outside of modeling which has gained some attention. Article needs expansion though. Courtkittie 20:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep - She is notable for her cosmetics company Bobbi Brown Cosmetics which she still runs. The article as it stands isn't that useful. Improve the article, and it's a keeper. Seg 20:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Published author, celebrity, model, owner of Bobbi Brown Cosmetics. Pretty notable. Pburka 21:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable model etc. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable model. JamesBurns 05:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep I heard of her. She occasionally is mention several times on the American cable TV station, VH1 which likes to feature her on "Hottest Rockstar Girlfriends" type shows. --J. Nguyen 23:05, 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 Redirect --malathion ^talk 02:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Iceman Returneth

Delete as it stands this is basically unintelligble but appears to be about a role-playing computer game or somesuch stuff we don't want anyway. Google hits are a few hundred, but they are just random usages of the phrase with little meaning. -Splash 19:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a published adventure for Paranoia (role-playing game) and might have been created from the link on that page. Not notable enough to warrant a standalone article, I would say. Redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game) and delink the list of publications on this page to avoid its recreation. (However, The Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues, written by science fiction writer John M. Ford, is semi-legendary, and might actually be notable enough to warrant an article.) / Alarm 19:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete.DS 17:07, 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 Merge to Welcome to Eltingville. Essjay · Talk 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eltingville Trivia Off

Delete. Not encyclopedic, by any stretch of the human imagination. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As much as I enjoyed the show personally, I have to agree that this material from it has no place in its own article. I would opt for a merge and redirect into the Welcome to Eltingville article but I am not certain that it exists. TheMonkofDestiny 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect. Into the Welcome to Eltingville article, which subsequently could use a slight overhaul itself. TheMonkofDestiny 20:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Author of the article (Mark Cooper, Nonmember). Official members have the last say, of course, but I would like to point out this article does not fit any of the posted categories for deletion. There are other articles regarding trivia and quotes in Wikipedia.
- Merge a small selection and Redirect. This is not an encyclopedia article and may actually go beyond fair use as it is currently. ike9898 16:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- transwiki to wikiquotes. pamri 09:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginro

I suspect this to be a hoax. If not it's desperately obscure; googling ginro is inconclusive but ginro+rice and ginro+alcohol both return less than 30 hits, mostly from Wikipedia's mirrors. Flowerparty ^talk 19:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: This is not a hoax, but a misspelling of jinro. Mitchell k dwyer 02:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to jinro, then? Punkmorten 15:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno. Jinro's a brand-name. Do we usually create redirects for misspellings? If so, doesn't that get out of hand? I mean, there are a million ways to misspell something. Mitchell k dwyer 21:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect as per Mitchell Dwyer. JamesBurns 05:44, 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 redirect. Scimitar ^parley 23:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foolycooly

Delete: We don't want to start include phonetic redirects for every one of our 600,000-odd articles now, do we? -Splash 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to FLCL. Fooly Cooly and Foolycooly both garner a signficant number of google hits, so it's reasonable that someone might search for them. Pburka 21:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to FLCL. When the true and exact title of a work is difficult or somehow awkward to pronounce which means that many people refer to it by an abbreviation or a phonetic rendering, then it makes sense to include a redirect for that. You'll note that Dr. Strangelove is a redirect for Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb because it is widely known under that shortened version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, was used in the ova itself if I remember rightly. --zippedmartin 19:09, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warrex

Delete. I'd call it a hoax, but that'd insult many perfectly good hoaxes. I'd call it an article, but... Anyway, it does get some Googles but they appear to be screennames or surnames and things. Nothing notable. -Splash 19:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh...right. Delete as recreational drug result. - Lucky 6.9 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- "cells" don't get individual articles. Maybe author can recreate and write about the whole organization, assuming there actually is one. DavidH 00:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverified/possible hoax. --Etacar11 00:43, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Penguin Girl

Delete. A character in a podcast isn't notable. The name gets 27 unique Google hits. -Splash 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as vanity; delete one way or another. - Lucky 6.9 20:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought about that but WP:CSD A7 insists it must be a "real person", and I don't think this is. -Splash 20:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - There was a proposal for speedy deletion for some kinds of fictional charaters. it failed. Thus not a speedy candidate. DES 21:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -Not notable, not encyclopedic. Courtkittie 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I don't see any thing significant in the article to be worthy enough to stay on Wiki. UniReb 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough to stay as far as I can see. DES 21:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah. This explains this edit. Uncle G 11:36:18, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Keep. Google now has 394 hits and it's not even a month later.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 02:08, 11 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 Delete --malathion ^talk 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iced Out Eskimoz

Total band vanity. One relevant Google hit; three total hits for "Iced Out Eskimoz." - Lucky 6.9 20:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Courtkittie 20:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - It doesn't appear to have any notability as of this time. Maybe in the future? UniReb 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:21, 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 Delete --malathion ^talk 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anakrusis

Delete. They are "genre defying", so they are almost certainly non-notable. Gets some Google hits as it appears to be a foreign word. -Splash 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Megastyle Hyper Future Metal" screams deletion (nonsense). Punkmorten 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. There seems to have been another (U.S.) band called Anacrusis and they have an allmusic entry. This one doesn't. --Etacar11 01:43, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructed

Delete. This is the first time I have heard of this outfit ever and I live in Indiana. ~~While some notable faces in rock have appeared on their previous works~~ The majority of this article seems to be filled with lies (complete with a Photoshopped picture of Megadeth depicting the kids as former members of the band), it seems more like this page was created in an attempt to stir popularity than it was an attempt to be an encyclopedic entry for a notable and worthwhile band. TheMonkofDestiny 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up: A look at the site being advertised in the article reveals that they are using the article listed at Wikipedia as a means for promoting themselves. This article has officially entered the nonsense zone.TheMonkofDestiny 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. They're gonna have a nice time explaining why their advertisement has a VfD tag on it. - ulayiti (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity at the very least. --Etacar11 01:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bandity, and nuke all of the pictures, too. WE ARE NOW IN THE WIKIPEDIA! Not for long, guys. android 79 04:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:21, 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 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. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.

[edit] Banoffee Pie

Delete. Whilst a very tasty dessert, this well-meant article is a semi-recipe that is unlikely to expand beyond that. -Splash 20:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. There are numerous other pages similar that is why I made it. I will add more information in to make it more "useful" to you. Also would it help if a recipe was added instead of links to recipes'? Cokehabit 20:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
keep. It is a very well known and popular desert and I'm sure much more can and will be added to the article. Evil Eye 20:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
keep. And it's great when you have teh munchies. But seriously, I think it should be kept, it does have value. ~~beu 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)~~
- There is no such user. Vote actually by anon IP 80.235.134.39. -Splash 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
keep. I see absolutely no reason it can't expand and more can't be added - the article has no problems at all being well-written. Plasmaroo 22:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- User's 38th edit.-Splash 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
keep. This well written article should be kept. tomaw 22:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- User's first and only edit. -Splash 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
delete. Tastes fantastic, but the potential for abuse is still very high. Certainly don't want another definition which is best left in the likes of Urban Dictionary ;-) Perhaps best sent to the trash can for deletion methinks. AlexHowells 22:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. All 3 made so far to this VfD. -Splash 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC).
Keep and move to Banoffee pie. While I'm loath to agree with the sock puppets, I don't see the rationale behind the nomination. Ideally a recipe should be written at wikibooks and linked to from this article. Flowerparty ^talk 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My rationale is that to be an encyclopedia article, it should be about the history and cultural significance of banoffee pie, not just a half-hearted recipe for it. WP is not a cookbook, and I find that restaurant's claim to have invented thing a little hard to take and in any case unverifiable. I cannot fathom why this needs sockpuppets, either.-Splash 23:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Well that seems fair; if the pub did invent the thing then it's news to me. But it's still a well-known dessert and the claim can be rephrased or simply edited out if it's proven to be false. I can't agree that it's unlikely to be expanded; it's not even got a picture yet. Flowerparty ^talk 23:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as per above (and darn those socks) --Doc (?) 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep/Move as above; appears to be a real pie, even if claim of inventorship is not verifiable. (Now I'm all hungry!) --Alan Au 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep/move as per above and mark as needing expansion. Yum. -- The Anome 07:57, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can't Touch This Inc.

Delete. Again, part of the reason why I listed Deconstructed up for deletion as well, as it seems this exists with the interest of promotional intent more than any worthwhile encyclopedic content. TheMonkofDestiny 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up: A look at the Deconstructed article reveals that these two have been created solely for promotional purposes. Complete nonsense that does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd watch for their recreations as the user may become upset at their removal and attempt to go promoting around here again. TheMonkofDestiny 21:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam/promotion. --Etacar11 01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-aggrandizement. --Scimitar ^parley 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Scimitar ^parley 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Fisher

This page has little (if any) encyclopedic content and seems to have been created as a prank. Celzrro 20:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. TheMonkofDestiny 20:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The article doesn't display much of anything at all. Most importantly, it doesn't even mention of anything notable that this individual has done. UniReb 21:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable. Pburka 21:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems like nonsense Punkmorten 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Very short article providing little or no context. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Bobby Fischer. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 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 (no votes) --malathion ^talk 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Illustrated Diary of Struan R. Sutherland

Delete, nn webcomic set up a few months ago. Domain name has no Alexa traffic info, and Google gives 11 unique hits. -Splash 20:35, 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 already rewritten and moved, just closing the old vfd. Scimitar ^parley 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eighty Years' War (1914-1995)

This article breaks the Wikipedia:No original research official policy deeply by its title and subject. I can't find references to this theory on google. Andries 20:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Perhaps this article has some educational value to it. UniReb 21:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOR. Dunc|☺ 21:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research, and very silly at that... it's just listing random singular violent events from around Europe and arguing that they constitute a permanent state of war on the entire continent. - ulayiti (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Move to a better name - I've heard the theory that the period from the beginning of World War I to the fall of the Berlin Wall actually constituted a single war, and I suppose the Balkan conflict could be shoehorned into that idea... then again, I've heard that all of human history could be characterized as one long war. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
- So that would be a war from 1914-1989, not from 1914-1995. Andries 21:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unless a published scholar can be shown to have refered to an eighty years war between 1914-1995. Nolte doesn't count as he was writing in 1987. If there is no independent work cited for the specifics of the theory then it is original research. --Doc (?) 23:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original Research. DavidH 00:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No no no. Original research, and a flawed idea to boot. Sabine's Sunbird 01:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. --Etacar11 01:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Possibly move to Short Twentieth Century, the "left-wing" attempt by Eric Hobsbawm to describe the 20th century as a whole (see Age of Extremes or the German Wiki). The (older) "right wing" theory of the European Civil War was described by Ernst Nolte. I thaught the (Dutch inspired) "Eighty Years"-description could be the more neutral version. I think all this is not so much a question of very original research, but of neologism indeed. If it is not allowed to create a "neutral neologism", I agree that the article should have another name. Anyway, in my view, Wikipedia can contribute to end the intolerance between "European left" and "European right", even make Europeans aware that their war ís (already) over (for ten, maybe fifteen years) and that their points of view can coexist, as well as catholicism and protestantism coexisted in the Dutch United Provinces after their Eighty Years' War. Karel Anthonissen 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I could be persuaded by a move to Short Twentieth Century - and a clean-up and NPOV so the article recorded Hobsbawm's thesis - critiques and alternative views (offered by other notable persons with citations). But you need to note that WP is not a place for seeking to an 'end the intolerance' (as laudable as that may be) (see WP:NOT) --Doc (?) 16:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't remember the existing page Short twentieth century. What can be done? Karel Anthonissen 16:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just merge your article with that one. You are the sole author of Eighty Years' War (1914-1995), so you can just use the text from that one, even if it is deleted, and work it into the other article. Short twentieth century is a better title anyway, as it can discuss the issue without limiting itself to specific years, which may vary between different historians. Uppland 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, perhaps some page moving needs to be done, but just because the two scholars referenced in the article are not from the US does not mean it's 'original research'. --zippedmartin 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I will vote keep just to outweigh some of the delete votes, but I'd actually prefer a merge of this material with Short twentieth century. Historians use the concepts of "short" and "long" centuries all the time. Another notable historian, Giovanni Arrighi, has actually proposed a "Long twentieth century". Uppland 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Rewritten and moved to Survey of the twentieth century, including this Long twentieth century-idea. Please try to improve. Karel Anthonissen 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The rewrite is OK but the section 'A(n) European eighty years' war' still consitutes Original Research - unless you can cite a scholar for this view --Doc (?) 19:48, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love And Peace

Meaningless nonsense ... looks like some sort of scripture, without any clear meaning. --Ragib 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: as nominator. --Ragib 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Personal essay, seems to be in prqaise of a particular band. DES 22:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- doesn't seem to be a real concept, idea, or entity Afelton 22:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 01:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research/essay. JamesBurns 05:23, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about disability

Nothing more than a list; not appropriate for Wikipedia Steve Casburn 21:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And kinda weird at that. "Sunken eyes" in "Blackbird"? Jeez, seems to me "broken wings" would be more obvious there. "Your eyes have died" in Daniel isn't about physical blindness, I wouldn't think. At any rate, these stupid lists are one of the dumbest things about Wikipedia. Delete. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Indifferent. It seems no different than some of the other lists that waft around Wikipedia but it also doesn't seem to accurately list songs dealing with the particular subject matter. TheMonkofDestiny 21:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete unmaintainable list. Too subjective, and Lists of songs about TOPIC are pretty useless.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete non encyclopedic. Lists will clog the universe, as they have TV. DavidH 00:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyc. If the current contents is the best that is available, then the list stand on severely shaky ground anyway. Lists, <sigh>.-Splash 01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Songlistcruft. android 79 04:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, such list are unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 20:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Subject to interpretation, obviously, so it doesn't deserve to be kept. ral 315 21:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An extremely subjective list. The lyrics quoted could have different interpretations. Animebill11:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 02:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jobpac

A non-notable piece of commercial software. CDC (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - As above --PhilipO 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Cdc. Dcarrano 02:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The vfd notice was never placed on the article, so I'm re-opening the vote. Eugene van der Pijll 21:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vegaswikian 06:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Scimitar ^parley 23:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yw

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of online slang. This might belong as part of an article on online chat or selctronic communication and how it has influenced language. it does not belong in an article standing alone. Delete. DES 22:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Internet slang, where it already is listed.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
redirect per above. DavidH 00:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per above, but only because it's already there. -Splash 01:14, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Uncut 2

Reads like story (probably is one...), unencyclopedic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's fan fiction. Delete. AlbertR 23:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable. Nandesuka 04:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sonic Uncut and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sonic Uncut 1. Flowerparty ^talk 12:21, 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 and redirect to Chocolate City. That is my interpretation of the comments below. Essjay · Talk 06:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate city

Delete. non-notable and the reference is rarely used now Zpb52 22:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. "Chocolate City" is an album by Parliament (band). An entry could be made for that album, merging the relevant info from the present article Chocolate city into it. "Chocolate City" is also a song on the album, a song which has its own song review on Allmusic.com [16], indicating some notability. Punkmorten 23:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Move/Rewrite per Punkmorten --Alan Au 23:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Move as per Punkmorten.Capitalistroadster 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Move as above. I grew up within spitting distance of DC and never heard it called that by anyone there. --Etacar11 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have now written an article on the Chocolate City album. Capitalistroadster 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with the new chocolate city album entry by Capitalistroadster. Granite T. Rock 03:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect into Washington, D.C. ala Music City and City of Brotherly Love. Or Redirect to Chocolate City. Notability, though, is definitely established by Parliament album and the Washington Post article, not to mention the term is definitely used in DC especially by R&B radio stations. BTW, Granite T. Rock, your vote sounds more like a vote for Redirect to me. Ektar 19:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Funny, I lived there for 15+ years and never heard the term used once, but then, I don't listen to R&B radio stations... ;) --Etacar11 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT back toJoke. Splash 19:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead baby jokes

A list of jokes. Delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw this and went "what the...?" Delete. AlbertR 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 22:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Non-encyclopedic. Zpb52 23:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki to Wikibooks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
~~Q: What's red and sits in a highchair?~~

~~:A: The link is red after we Delete it as non-encyclopedic. But I could imagine a future article under this name working (however bad the jokes are). CanadianCaesar 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)~~

Strong redirect to joke. If we look at the history of the article, this started out as a redirect page. If we look at the joke article, they cover dead baby jokes, with an actual discussion, not just examples. CanadianCaesar 01:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Unfortunately, the "dead baby joke" is a longstanding subgenre of "gross joke" in American humor. A redirect only would be ok, too, but the article is definitely not to be kept. Geogre 03:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
There's a perfectly good chapter of Dead Baby Jokes in the Jokebook. As per CanadianCaesar, revert to the redirect. Uncle G 11:43:12, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Redirect Some time ago I actually searched for that in Wikipedia and was surprised to find a redirect. Grue 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to avoid this in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to joke. ral 315 21:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect or just plain Keep. Why are we taking real things out of the encyclopedia? Brodo 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is not a Big Book of Everything. It is an encyclopaedia. We already have a Big Book of Jokes. We've had it since 2004. It's silly to duplicate effort by starting a second one. Uncle G 02:36:46, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
Redirect, like it was before-LtNOWIS 01:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and hopefully no one will try to recreate the jokes themselves. DS1953 13:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. violet/riga (t) 23:05, 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 --malathion ^talk 02:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian actress image gallery

Yes, they're very attractive. No, this isn't encyclopedic. Many of these appear to be copyvios, regardless of the poster's assertion that "the website I found them on says they are in the public domain". Delete, and delete the copyvio images too. -- The Anome 22:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

A gallery with pictures of Indian actresses and....well, that's about it. Delete. AlbertR 23:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pictures alone are a photogallery and a mere photogallery maketh not an article. This could be construed as a graphical list. I don't like lists, either, usually. -Splash 01:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pretty clearly a case of WP:NOT. --nixie 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and can not be a list. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 01:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, while I don't mind this page WP:NOT says WP is not a "collections of internal links" or "[c]ollections of photographs or media files". So, change the system first if you want to keep this page. gren グレン
Delete unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 05:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice but unencyclopedic. Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete, unencyclopedic and portrays women as objects. Sarge Baldy 03:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And check for image copyvio of the images. mikka (t) 19:26, 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, tagged for expansion. Splash 19:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potatoes for Christmas

This article isn't notable nor educational to be placed in Wikipedia. UniReb 22:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

keep and expand. Albums belong in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, although this article does need expansion (infobox etc). Also, the article title may have erroneous capitalisation. Punkmorten 23:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep as an album, but needs expansion. DavidH 00:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep album by notable artist in Papa Roach. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn album. JamesBurns 05:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as per Punkmorten. Junkyard prince 17:34, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1000000000000000000 (number)

Delete. This article is a move of 1000000000000000000. That one was voted for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, and the result of the vote was either delete or redirect. As such, 1000000000000000000 (number) should not have been created as a copy of 1000000000000000000. Regardless of that, I doubt that this article has any chance into a developing into an encyclopedic article, so I suggest that it be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 21:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. A number of similar articles have #redirect [[Orders of magnitude (numbers)]] . See what links there Rich Farmbrough 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is ridiculous. IMHO, the previous VfD had a consensus to delete, and this should probably be taken up with the closing editor, or the on WP:AN. -Splash 22:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have asked Rich Farmbrough this very question. -Splash 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Further to the above, my feeling was that the debate moved to bring out the policy that any article named by an integer was a year article, and it should, if not worthy of an article of it's own, redirect to the appropriate date type entity. Any article or redirect about the number should be in the XXXXXX (number) namespace. Possibly I over read the sense of development of a position, compared with the numbers of votes. If so I apologise.
  - My own thoughts differ from the result I interpreted anyway, I think this should also be a redirect, for the following reasons.
    - Redirects are cheap.
    - This is consistant with what has happened elsewhere.
    - There is little information for the number itself, and it is all in Orders of magnitude (numbers).
    - If these articles are totally deleted they will be perpetually recreated and deleted. It's more sense to have a redirect than a protected deleted page. Rich Farmbrough 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Question You closed the previous discusion saying it should be made into a redirect. Why didn't you made it? Nabla 00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        I did. It redirects to the article concerned with far-future dates 11th millennium and beyond. I also added a note at the top of that article to simpify matters for users who wondered "what is the correct name for 1000000000000000000" and entered the digits into wikipedia. This is still not a good solution, but probably less bad than what was there before. Elsewhere I will be (re)raising the policy question of having large integers interpreted as dates. For now, it's probably good to work with the policy. Rich Farmbrough 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        I see... so its just a matter of interpretation. From the previous discussion I concluded that 1...0 should be moved to 1...0 (number) and this made into a redirect also. Nabla 13:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        
        Because when he moved the article, it created a redirect, as occurs automatically? The article 1000000000000000000 is a redirect page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 01:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}
      - I see. Since we are where we are, we may as well continue from here (since we're debating the same article again, in effect). Still, whilst there was the consensus you describe among the redirect votes, the consensus of the process was still to delete, imo. -Splash 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- There were 12 votes to delete on the previous VFD, and five to redirect. Of the five to redirect, one was to redirect to Trillion, three to names of large numbers, and one was a redirect vote with no specification as to where. Seeing as a redirect is essentially a delete anyway - as nobody is voting to merge and maintain information - that's a unanymous delete vote. Far from a move vote. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 23:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)}
  - I count 13 to delete. ~~Hmmm. I'm wondering if I should just take this to WP:AN since the closer is evidently not around at the mo.~~ This VfD shouldn't even be able to exist, really. -Splash 00:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Splash. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 23:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)}
Speedy redirect to... what? Names of large numbers?. A Vfd on this was recently closed with a result of move and replace with redirect. It was moved but no one made the redirect. Nabla 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete content covered in trillion. DavidH 00:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly one reason for the article/redirect existing is that it less ambigous than "trillion". I'm certain it will bceome at most a redirect. Rich Farmbrough 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
We must Delete! This article was created by Rich Farmbrough when he personally disagreed with the results of the VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000. We must stand by the results of the VFD, or admit VFD is meaningless. --A D Monroe III 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't personally disagree. I saw an old VfD that had't been closed, and dealt with it, in the same way it seems you had previously. Maybe I got it wrong, as I have said above. As I also said above, the actions I took were not those I would have chosen without the VfD. These two articles/redirects are verging on the trivial - wikipedia is not consistant, and the VfD process doesn't stand or fall by one article alone. See WP:POINT Moreover I encouraged Oleg to list this for VfD, and, had he not been so efficient (:-), I would have suggested changing the article into a redirect along the lines of established practice for 1000... .000 (number). Rich Farmbrough 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I assumed "I think this should also be a redirect" was your reason for making it a redirect. I'm no admin, so I can't delete pages; I can only vote to delete, as I did then and now. --A D Monroe III 04:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This is ludicrous. Nandesuka 01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. A redirect is harmless, prevents recreation and has the potential of driving traffic to the site from search engines. — David Remahl 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Covered elsewhere. — RJH 15:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is silly. And we'll never use a number that big anyway. JDoorjam 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Every large power of 10 needn't be a redirect (there are infinite powers of 10, after all), and this seems like a happy place to draw the line. Xoloz 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete: I hate to be Sargeant Rock all the time, but I view this as an article that was deleted (by vote), whether anyone executed the VfD decision or not. Therefore, this would be a speedy delete as moving of previously VfD'd material. At any rate, we're not here to argue about the people who close votes -- that is a wp:an matter and not a VfD matter. Since any ambiguity at all will be misread, let me say Delete. (I think I had voted to redirect to Orders of magnitude. Note that 1,000 redirect votes is not a single "move" vote. Also note that a move does not merge (which is really the least anyone could conclude -- that the voters felt that the article was a multiplication of a single article into multiple locations).) Geogre 04:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've speedily deleted this. R adiant _>|< 08:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, but doing a speedy was a bit too much I think. One could have just waited a couple more of days and close the VfD properly. No? Oleg Alexandrov 15:13, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 19:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legion_04

Not notable. A fan group with about 200 people? It's not obvious from google that they have much notability, and there's a lot of false hits.Mmmbeer 23:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable club. DavidH 00:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn group of people who cheer. -Splash 01:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn club. JamesBurns 05:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge make it as a redirect to Columbus Crew. ThirtyTwenty 04:03, 1 August 2005.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --malathion ^talk 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erkling

Incomplete VfD, completed by Salleman 23:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, no sources, no distinction between fiction and reality, presenting a theory, and so on. --DrTorstenHenning 16:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Minor Harry Potter Beasts. --Salleman 23:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Der Erlkönig. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't confuse erkling (Rowling's creation) with erlking (from German folklore). --Salleman 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Erlking, which is effectively a disambiguation page (and also contains a pointer to Der Erlkönig.) Nandesuka 02:54, 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 Redirect. Scimitar ^parley 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Scavenger Hunt

This seems to be related to a DEF CON 2005 event. I tagged it as a current event and left it around while the contest was running, but I'm not sure what to do with it now (event is over). Merge with DEF_CON? Move? Delete? --Alan Au 23:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not worth keeping, that's for sure. Redirect to Scavenger hunt or failing that, delete. AlbertR 00:00, 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 because it looks like this has been transwikified --malathion ^talk 02:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do_no_take_a_bath_in_Jordan,_Gordon!

Primary source material belongs in Wikisource. This article is in the process of being transwiki'd. DavidConrad 23:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This is my first attempt to transwiki something, and I'm not at all sure I've gotten it right. The original article has been moved to a Transwiki: article on Wikisource but the many links in that article are now broken. I have not (yet) attempted to make them point back over to Wikipedia. I have placed entries in the local transwiki log and the Wikisource transwiki log. Any assistance or comments will be greatly appreciated, either here, or on my talk page. After the move is complete, the local article should either be deleted or redirected to Wikisource. Unless it is felt that the original article should remain on Wikipedia. DavidConrad 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete. Though transwiki it to its proper name: "Scottish Rhapsody", if I recall. A nice piece. Oh, and clean up the cute formatting when tranwiking. -R. fiend 03:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki but Edith Sitwell only died in 1964 - doesn't this mean it is still under copyright? -- 213.123.195.207 05:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't considering that. Well, Walton's Facade was written in 1922, according to the article, so the poem must be older than that. I forget how copyright works, is it by the year of publication or the death of the author? And would even 83 years be long enough? -R. fiend 20:34, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] July 31

[edit] Adam Burkutally

[edit] Simon Drage

[edit] KCUF

[edit] Maurice Hawk Elementary School

[edit] Current status of Humanity

[edit] Khapi and also KHAPI

[edit] Tajeshwar

[edit] Teh Scene

[edit] Dum-arm.com

[edit] Encyclopedia of arda

[edit] Winter Maul Wars

[edit] Team Britney Spears

[edit] Team Britney Spears

[edit] Chaos Chambers and Category:Chaos Chambers

[edit] Co-locate (verb)

[edit] ARTS Interface Descriptions

[edit] Digitally Wise

[edit] Gran Turismo 4 Moblie

[edit] Chili's Babyback Ribs song

[edit] Thearmpit.net

[edit] List of 89 ZIP codes

[edit] Double Gravity Ships

[edit] Nintendo: Create Your Own Level!

[edit] Ambroise Levesque

[edit] OghamWiki

[edit] Sarita vihar

[edit] Timeline of George W. Bush

[edit] Constitution of Turkey

[edit] Backend Hosting

[edit] Basement culture

[edit] Chris Reardon UK

[edit] Klips ve Onlar

[edit] Ks-iwmi

[edit] Kronk

[edit] Kuzco

[edit] Non-native pronunciations of English

[edit] Jewish supremacy

[edit] Pan Am Flight 125

[edit] Nipper (Person)

[edit] Scottish Gaelic proverbs

[edit] Sumerian pronunciation

[edit] Reason To Believe (fanzine)

[edit] Oxygeno2

[edit] Hkix

[edit] Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation

[edit] James Murdoch (born 1980)

[edit] Encyclopedia of Arda

[edit] Gaetano Liperoti

[edit] Gaw

[edit] Anthony Walker

[edit] Palm_m130

[edit] Occasions in which computer software was used to infringe copyright

[edit] Lloyd J. Austin

[edit] Adaptive enzyme

[edit] Wil wheaton

[edit] Wadchadoing

[edit] Bill Foo and Foo resorts and casinos and Foo Foundation and Foo Technologies and Engineering Corp

[edit] Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates

[edit] Towel-waiving

[edit] Hostal

[edit] Shapps Technologies

[edit] "branch of science"

[edit] Law of information

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild

[edit] (interconnected) boundaries of Antarctica

[edit] (interconnected) boundaries of North America

[edit] List of boundaries

[edit] Ian Livingston

[edit] Michael Betteridge

[edit] Taliban aid

[edit] Greling Jackson

[edit] Real New York City

[edit] Serrated

[edit] Bobbi Brown

[edit] The Iceman Returneth

[edit] Eltingville Trivia Off